MARUTI KRISHANA NAIK Vs. ADVANI OERLIKON LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ex-Employees of the Company-M/s. Advani Oerlikon Limited have filed the present Petition challenging the Judgment and Order, dtd. 7/5/2004 passed by the First Labour Court, Pune dismissing the Complaints of Unfair Labour Practices filed by them. The order of the Labour Court has been confirmed by Industrial Court, Pune by dismissing Revision Applications filed by Petitioners by its Common Judgment and Order, dtd. 25/11/2005, which is also subject matter of challenge in the present Petition.

(2.) Respondent-M/s. Advani Oerlikon Limited (Oerlikon) is engaged in manufacturing of welding machines and welding equipment and has a Factory at Chinchwad, Pune. It appears that at the relevant time, there were two Unions representing the staff and Workmen viz. (i) M/s. Advani Oerlikon Staff Union, of which Petitioner Nos.1 to 7 were members and (ii) M/s. Advani Oerlikon Ltd., of which Petitioner Nos.8 to 12 are members. It appears that several settlements have been signed between Management and the Unions relating to Wages as well as service conditions of Workmen and Staff Members of the Oerlikon. The last settlement was signed in the year 1994, which remained in force till 31/8/1996. Union sent a fresh Charter of Demand on 16/7/1996 to the Management and about 18 meetings took between the Management and the Union without fructifying in any settlement. Therefore, the Management sought intervention of Conciliation Officer. Accordingly, various meetings took place before the Conciliation Officer. According to Petitioners, due to adamant and dilatory tactics adopted by the Management, the Union decided to hold dharna (agitation) in front of the office of Labour Commissioner. On 10/11/1997, Union decided to call for one day strike to show support to the dharna of committee members of Union. That the Oerlikon avoided attending further meetings before the Conciliation Officer, which led to the Unions commencing satyagrah andolan since 14/11/1997. There is some variation in the pleas adopted by the Petitioners and Oerlikon with regard to what occurred on 14/11/1997 onwards. While Petitioners claim that they never went on strike, it is the case of Respondent-Oerlikon that Petitioners went on strike and refused to resume duties. The Oerlikon therefore approached Industrial Court by filing Complaint (ULP) No.527 of 1997 in which Industrial Court passed Order, dtd. 28/11/1997 declaring the strike to be illegal. According to Oerlikon, despite declaration of strike as illegal, the Workers and Staff Members refused to resume duties despite issuance of several Written Notices as well as publication of notices in the newspapers. According to Oerlikon, a final notice was published on 25/12/1997 in a leading Newspaper circulating in Pune, calling upon Workers and staff to join duties by 29/12/1997 failing which Disciplinary Action was proposed against them. According to Oerlikon, after publication of final notice several Workers and staff were willing to join duties on 29/12/1997. However, 30 to 35 Employees gathered at the gate at 7.30 a.m. on 29/12/1997 and prevented the Workmen and Staff from entering the Factory and created an atmosphere of terror. According to Oerlikon, when Chief Manager-Manufacturing attempted to assess the situation at the gate, he was abused and assaulted. It is also alleged that several Officers and Staff Members were assaulted by the agitating Workers and staff.

(3.) In the wake of above allegations, Respondent-Management issued Termination Orders terminating the services of the Petitioners. The Termination Orders were issued either on 31/12/1997 or on 5/1/1998. The termination was effected without conducting any enquiry. However, the reason for termination indicated in the orders was participation in illegal strike, preventing other Workers/staff from joining duties and creating atmosphere of terror by threatening them. Accordingly, misconduct under various clauses of Model Standing Orders was alleged in the Termination Orders. It was stated that since illegality of the strike was already objected in Complaint (ULP) No.527 of 1997, it was not necessary to conduct separate enquiry in respect of the acts of Petitioners in participating any illegal strike. So far as other misconduct of Petitioners was concerned, the Termination Orders stated that it was not possible to conduct enquiry on account of atmosphere of terror created by them. This is how all the Petitioners came to be terminated by Respondent-Management w.e.f. either on 1/1/1991 or 5/1/1991. However, they were paid various amounts towards full and final settlement including unpaid wages and leave encashment with liberty to them to fill up forms for release of Gratuity.