WOOLLEN KAMGAR SANGHATANA Vs. SETH INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in this petition pertains to whether an unrecognised union in the Woollen Textiles Industry can file a complaint under Item. 9 of Schedule IV of the mrtu and PULP Act claiming wages for workmen who they represent. The Industrial Court has dismissed the complaint on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme court in Shramik Utkarsh Sabha v/s. Raymond Woollen mills Ltd. and Ors. , 1995 I CLR 607. The Industrial court has held that no other union but the representative union under the Bombay Industrial relations Act (for short, 'sir Act') or a recognised union under the MRTU and PULP Act can file a complaint claiming wages on behalf of the workmen employed in the woollen Industry under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act.

(2.) IT appears that in April 1986, respondent No. 1 i. e. , Seth Industries Limited, and Respondent No. 2 i. e. , seth Textiles (against whom the Writ Petition has been dismissed on 12. 3. 2001 and no steps have been taken to get it restored) stopped providing work to the employees and did not pay the monthly wages. A complaint was filed in 1986 by the Woollen Mill Kamgar Union, a trade union representing the workmen at that point of time against Seth Textiles regarding non-payment of wages from the month of May 1986 onwards. The Complaint was allowed by the Industrial Court, declaring that the company had committed an unfair labour practice. It is not clear from the material before me whether a similar complaint was filed against Seth Industries.

(3.) IN 1987, Respondent No. 1 filed a Reference under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 before the Board for Industrial and Financial. Reconstruction (BIFR ). It has been declared a sick unit on 6. 10. 1987. It appears that Canara Bank has filed suit No. 3635 of 1988 against Respondent No. 1. On 25. 5. 1990, an order was passed by the BIFR for applying to High Court for winding up of the company. The respondent-company approached the AAIFR in appeal. The aaifr has rejected the appeal and the order of the Blfr has been confirmed from 22. 6. 1992. Aggrieved by this order, Respondent No. 1. has filed a Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court and obtained an ad-interim order staying the operation of the order and findings of the bifr.