BLAZE ADVERTISING PVT. LTD Vs. BLAZE ADVERTISING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed a complaint in the Industrial Court, Bombay, alleging that the first respondent-union and respondents 2 to 4 who are some of the office-bearers of the said union had committed unfair labour practices covered by item (5) of Sch. III of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The practices complained of were two, namely:

(2.) The respondents resisted the complaint contending that the complaint itself was non-maintainable. According to them, their demonstration on 7/6/1983, was peaceful and legitimate Likewise, their letter, dtd. 3/7/1983, had been written by them in the exercise of their trade union rights. They further urged that neither the incident of 7/6/1983, nor the said letter amounted to any unfair labour practice within the meaning of the said Act and, therefore, the complaint should be rejected.

(3.) The Industrial Court by its decision, dtd. 23/1/1984, held that as regards the demonstration of 7/6/1983, the Court was unable to accept that any abusive slogans were hurled by those who had staged the demonstration or that at that time, any attempt was made to press open the glass entrance door of the auditorium to make the slogans audible in the auditorium. Hence, the demonstration in question, did not amount to any unfair labour practice. The Court further held that even assuming that any abusive slogans were raised at the time, since it was only a solitary incident, it could not be said that the respondents had indulged in unfair labour practice. As regards the letter, dtd. 3/7/1983, addressed to the theatres, the Court held that it did not constitute a coercive action on the part of the respondents because the employees had not commenced their agitations at the concerned theatres. In the result, the Court dismissed the complaint. It is this order which is challenged by the petitioner by this petition filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Although the petition is filed under both the articles, it is really one under Art. 227 of the Constitution and is being treated as such.