MACKINON MACKENZINE LTD Vs. G S BAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MACKINNON Mackenzie and Co. Ltd. original respondent in Complaint (ULP) No. 1081 of 1992 and petitioner in Writ Petition no. 2733 of 1996 has preferred this Letters patent Appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble single Judge of this court, whereby, the order passed by the member, Industrial Court, Mumbai declaring that respondent-company has committed unfair labour practice under Item No. 9 of Schedule iv of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter for the sake of convenience refer to as MRTU AND PULP act), as there was non observance of Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 and Section 25-G of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 was held, legal and valid and writ petition was rejected.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience hereafter the parties shall be referred to as the complainant union and respondent-company. Brief facts giving rise to this L. P. A. are as under : -The respondent-company was engaged in the business of shipping, ship owning, managing ships and operating, clearing and forwarding, overseas recruitment and property owning and development. The complainant union is registered under Trade Union Act, 1956. The respondent-company in its establishment at Ballard Pier, Bombay had approximately 150 employees who were all workmen and members of the complainant union. According to the complainant union, whenever there used to be any issue pertaining to the services of workmen or about their voluntary retirement etc. the respondent-company used to have negotiations with the complainant union, Thus there was a custom, usage and practice amounting to a condition of service and an agreement viz. any major decision affecting their members or employees is always used to be discussed with the complainant union before its implementation.

(3.) SOMETIME in the last week of July, 1992 there was a rumour in the company that large number of workers are going to be retrenched. The members of the complainant union therefore met the General Manager of respondent-company on July 30, 1992 and he also confirmed the rumour and told them that retrenchment notices would be issued. Immediately thereafter i. e. on July 31, 1992 one of the member of the complainant union viz. A. P. Rodrigues received a letter dated July 27, 1992 purportedly to be a notice of retrenchment effective on closing of business on August 4, 1992. It was stated in the said notice/letter that retrenchment compensation and one month salary in lieu of notice is being paid to him. The copy of the statement of reasons for retrenchment was also attached to the said notice. In the said statement of reasons it was mentioned that as a result of recession in the industry from 1988 the accumulated losses which were to the tune of Rs. 12. 41 crores in 1983 reached to Rs. 70 crores. It was specifically mentioned in the statement of reasons that some of the departments of the company are being closed. The departments which were to be closed and which were to be continue were also specified in the said statement of reasons.