KISHANLAL RAMLAL Vs. BALKRISHNA SHETTY AND RAJKUMAR MOTWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions can be conveniently decided by a common judgment, as practically same and similar controversy exists in both of them.

(2.) In both these petitions the petitioner is the owner and proprietor of Rasna Restaurant, Churchgate, Bombay. Respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 822 of 1984 is one Balkrishna. He was in service of Kishanlal. The services of Rajkumar and Balkrishna came to an end in 1976. Respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 823 of 1984 (hereinafter referred to as Rajkumar) was serving with the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as Kishanlal). In 1976 the services of Rajkumar came to an end. A complaint was made about this termination of service of Balkrishna and Rajkumar with an allegation that the said termination was by way of victimisation and in colourable exercise of the powers of the employer. Such type of termination has been defined as unfair labour practice as per item No. 1(a) and (b) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Unfair Practices Act). This complaint was filed under section 28 of the said Act. On 10-7-1980 the Labour Court, Bombay, decided the said complaint after recording a finding that the termination of these two employees Rajkumar and Balkrishna constituted an unfair labour practice. A direction was given by the Labour Court that these employees should be reinstated with full back wages. A copy of this order is at pages 19 to 30 in the compilation of Writ Petition No. 823 of 1984. It is common ground that the said order was challenged on behalf of Kishanlal upto the Supreme Court and Kishanala has lost throughout. On 17-12-1980 another application was made by the Labour Union before the Industrial Court, Bombay, making a grievance that Kishanlal has committed unfair labour practice as contemplated by Item No. 9 of Schedule IV. That item states that failure to implement an award would be an unfair labour practice. The contention was that the above mentioned order of the Labour Court dated 10-7-80 was an award as contemplated by item No. 9 and that Kishanlal has committed an unfair labour practice by not reinstating the two employees and also by not giving them all the back wages. This application or complaint was opposed on behalf of Kishanlal on various grounds. One of the grounds was that the order dated 10-7-1980 passed by the Labour Court was not an award as contemplated by Item No. 9 and consequently, non-implementation of that order would not be an unfair labour practice. This contention was rejected by the Industrial Court A finding was recorded that there has been an unfair labour practice not on the of Kishanlal as envisaged by item No. 9 of Schedule IV. This decision was given on 22-12-1981 (vide pages 40 to 50 of the compilation in Writ Petition No. 823 of 1984). In substance, the Industrial Court again directed reinstatement of the two employees with all full back wages.

(3.) Section 50 of the Unfair Labour Practices Act provides a remedy for execution of an order under which any amount is made recoverable from the employer. The contention of the employees is that Kishanlal did not obey this order dated 22-12-1981. Balkrishna, therefore, filed Application No. 43 of 1982 before the Industrial Court, Bombay, claiming the arrears right from the termination of service upto the date of the application. Similar Application No. 42 of 1982 was filed by Rajkumar.