CEAT LTD Vs. MURPHY INDIA EMPLOYEES UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These proceedings arise out of an order passed by the Industrial Court on 29th March, 2001 holding that the petitioner had committed unfair labour practices under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule 4 of the maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour practices Act, 1971, The Industrial Court has come to the conclusion that the workmen to whom the complaint before it relates were entitled to the benefit of a settlement dated 29th April, 1991 that was arrived at with the recognised Union. The contention of the petitioner was that the workmen to whom the complaint relates would not be entitled to the benefit of the settlement since one of the clauses of the settlement provided that it would apply to those workmen on the permanent roll of the petitioner as on 31st December, 1990. The Industrial Court has held that the workmen in question would be entitled to the benefit of the settlement. Essentially two issues arise for the consideration of this Court based upon the only two submissions which have been urged : (i) Whether the clause in the settlement dated 29th April, 1991 to the effect that the settlement shall cover all the terms and conditions of service of permanent workmen and shall apply to ail permanent workmen on the roll of the Company as on 31st December, 1990 would exclude the application of the settlement to the complainant workmen for the reason that they became permanent employees of the Company subsequent to the date of the settlement; and (ii) Whether the workmen in question have correctly been held to be entitled to the benefit of deemed permanency under model Standing Order 4a of the Model Standing Orders framed under the industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. For the reasons which I now propose to indicate, I am of the view that the Industrial Court is not in error in the conclusion which it has arrived at and that the Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is accordingly liable to be dismissed.

(2.) The workmen to whom the complaint before the Industrial Court relates were initially employees of a Company by the name of Norwest Electronics Ltd. ("norwest") until 30th January, 1991. Norwest was engaged in carrying out maintenance and repair work for and on behalf of Murphy Limited ("murphy") of electronic goods including television Sets, Norwest exclusively performed work for and on behalf of Murphy. The workmen in question were permanent employees of Norwest. Murphy was in financial difficulty and it appears that in pursuance of proceedings under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special provisions) Act, 1985, a scheme was framed by the Board for Industrial and financial Reconstruction in or about August, 1990. Murphy accordingly merged with the petitioner. Ceat Ltd. , and became the Electronics Division of the petitioner with effect from 31st August, 1989. According to the complaint before the Industrial Court, after January, 1991, the petitioner herein, effectively carried out maintenance and repair work that was earlier performed by Norwest from its factory situated at Parel and man for man with exactly the same workers who had been employed by Norweft. The workmen to whom the complaint relates, it is common ground, tendered their resignation from Norwest on 30th January, 1991. Initially on 1st February, 1991, they were appointed on a temporay basis for a period of three months by the petitioner. Subsequently, with effect from 1st May, 1991, the workmen were appointed on probation. These facts have not been disputed. In fact, in the written statement that was filed by the petitioner before the Industrial Court, the petitioner categorically admitted that in February, 1991, it had given an option to the employees either to continue in Norwest or to resign from that Company and that such of those person who would resign would be absorbed by the petitioner as fresh employees. According to the petitioner, most of the employees resigned, got their account settled and were employed as new employees with the petitioner. The petitioner admitted that these employees were initially employed temporarily and thereafter, were placed on probation.

(3.) The grievance of the workmen was that as employees of the petitioner, none of them was receiving even the statutory minimum wage under the minimum Wages Act. Some of the peons were receiving a paltry amount of rs. 500/- monthly and the junior TV Technicians were drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 640/ -. The benefits which were being extended to the other workmen of the petitioner were according to the workmen, denied to them, such as overtime payments and compulsory holidays. According to the complaint, each of the workmen was entitled to the benefit of permanency and that the company by depriving them of that benefit and other facilities extended to regular workmen, had committed unfair labour practices under Item 6 and 9 of Schedule 4 to the act. In these circumstances, apart from the statutory declaration that was sought, the claim before the Industrial Court was to the effect that the workmen whose names were listed in Annexure A to the complaint, be declared as the permanent workmen of the petitioner with effect from the respective dates of their joining norwest and that the petitioner be directed to grant them the same wages, benefits and facilities that were extended to the other workmen. The petitioner filed its written statement. The petitioner did not deny the circumstance that each of the workmen to whom the complaint relates, were initially the workmen of norwest to whom an option was given either to continue in the Company or to resign. The petitioner further admitted that the employees were informed that such of them as would resign would be absorbed in the petitioner as fresh employees. The allegation that there was an unfair labour practice on the part of the employer was denied.