GULF AIR, BOMBAY Vs. S.M. VAZE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS both these writ petitions arise out of the same order of the Industrial Court dated 27 October, 1989 passed on complaint (ULP) No. 1074 of 1988, they are taken up together for hearing and disposal.

(2.) WRIT Petition No. 163 of 1990 has been filed by Gulf Air, an Airline Company owned by the State of Baharain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Sultanate of Oman. United Arab Emirates, Sultanate of Oman. It carries on business in India since 1971. The petitioner in writ petition No. 176 of 1990 is Jet Air Private Limited. It is carrying on the business as General Sales Agents of several Airlines since 1974. The Respondents No. 2 in both the writ petitions is the Gulf Air Employees' Association, a registered Trade union representing the employees of Gulf Air.

(3.) THE contention of the employer -Gulf Air, on the other hand, was that no unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 9 of Schedule IV or any of the Items of any of the schedules to the MRTU and PULP Act had been committed by it. It was contended that there was no likelihood of any retrenchment of workmen as a result of appointment of GSA for Maharashtra and no workman was likely to be affected thereby, and a such, Section 9 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act had no application. In regard to the alleged failure to implement the assurance given by it on March 18, 1986 though its Assistant Vice -President, the submission of counsel was two fold. First, that the said letter was neither a settlement nor an assurance, second, that the object of the circular was only to remove the apprehensions in the mind of the staff at Bombay Station that the Bombay Station might be handed over to the GSA; it was in that context that to remove all doubts and fears in their minds, they were advised that it had neither any plans nor did it intend to hand over the Bombay Station to GSA. According to the petitioner, even this clarification or advice which has been termed by the Association as an assurance has also been strictly complied with by it as the agreement in question is neither intended nor purports to hand over the Bombay Station to Jet Air, who has been appointed a GSA for the State of Maharashtra only for the purpose of reservation and ticketing without in any manner affecting the continuity of the service of its existing staff at Bombay or their service conditions including promotions etc. The sole object of appointment of GSA was to achieve better working and to provide better customer service. The Industrial Court, however, did not accept the above contention and held that the appointment of Jet Air as GSA at Bombay for the State of Maharashtra amounted to unfair labour practice under Item 9 of the Schedule IV to the MRTU and PULP Act. According to the Tribunal, the appointment of GAS for Maharashtra had created a situation of likelihood of retrenchment of employees from reservation and ticketing departments and accounts department of the petitioner's office at Bombay and hence before bringing the said change it was incumbent on the petitioner to issue a notice under Section 9 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act and wait for 21 days thereafter. Not doing so according to the industrial Court, amounted to unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act. The Industrial Court also held that the assurance given by the petitioners to the workmen on March 18, 1986 could be regarded as an agreement with them as it had all the attributes of an agreement. It was further held that the handing over of the ticketing and reservation work to the GSA amounted to breach of the above agreement contained in circular of March 10, 1986. The Industrial court therefore allowed the complaint of the Association and declared that the employer -Gulf Air had committed unfair labour practice under item 9 of Schedule IV to the MRTU and PULP Act and directed it to stop the above unfair labour practice within three months of the order and not to retrench any staff from the Bombay Station only for the reason of surpluses on the ground of GSA. Gulf Air as well as its GSA, Jet Air, have challenged the above order of the Industrial Court by filing these two writ petitions.