RASHTRIYA KAMGAR SANGHATANA Vs. G K W LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE, made returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent waives service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.

(2.) TWO petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution have been instituted before the Court against an order dated 21st January, 2004 of the industrial Court at Mumbai. The order of the Industrial Court arose out of a complaint of unfair labour practice filed under section 28 of the Maharashtra recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act read with Item 9 of the IVth Schedule. Briefly stated, the contention of the workmen was that there has been a failure on the part of the employer to pay the earned wages of the workmen for the period commencing from February, 2002 and that therefore, this constitutes an Unfair Labour Practice under item 9 of Schedule 4 ("failure to implement award, settlement or agreement" ). The Industrial Court issued a declaration that the employer had committed an unfair labour practice and directed to the employer to pay wages of the workmen due from January 2002 until the date of the passing of the order and subsequent thereto. However, the Industrial Court help that since "the matter is under consideration of the B. I. F. R. , no time span can be fixed for paying such dues as prayed by the complainant". Similarly, in regard to future wages also the only direction was that the employer shall pay wages in accordance with the scheme that will be envisaged by the B. I. F. R. The workmen contend that having held that there was an unfair labour practice, the industrial Court was manifestly in error in making the implementation of its directions conditional upon such orders as may be passed by the B. I. F. R. under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985, thereby effectively and indefinitely prolonging the payment of earned wages of the workmen. In the petition which has been filed on behalf of the employer, the order of the Industrial Court in so far as it holds the employer guilty of an unfair labour practice has been called into question.

(3.) THE material facts on the basis of which the proceedings arise before this Court may now be briefly considered. Sankey Electrical Stampings and pressings Division (SESD) is a Division of the employer, GKW Limited and engaged in the manufacture of electrical stampings and laminations since 1940. The division also manufactures metal pressings for the automobile and white goods industry. Electrical stampings and laminations were also being manufactured by the company in its Division at Bangalore and Howrah, but these factories are now stated to be not functioning for two years. The last settlement regarding the revision of wages and service conditions of the workmen was entered into between the employer and the union in November 1985. The settlement expired in 1988 and the contention of the workmen is that though the company continued to make profits upto 1996-97, there was no wage revision. In or about 1995-96 a company by the name of Powmex Steel limited with an outstanding liability of Rs. 76 crores is stated to have merged with the company and it is alleged by the union that the financial position of the company came to be affected as a result of which the operating profit was converted into a loss in 1997-98 because of the heavy interest burden.