POLYPHARMA PVT LTD Vs. KAMGAR SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petition challenges the award of the Industrial Tribunal granting revision in wages and other demands. The demands relate to the monthly rated workmen (hereinafter referred to as 'the staff').

(2.) AN award of the Industrial Tribunal governed the service conditions of the daily rated workmen employed with the Petitioner -company in their two factories. In 1979, the workmen joined a trade union known as Maharashtra General Kamgar Union (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'MGKU'). According to the petitioner, after a long period of labour unrest, a settlement was signed between the union and the management on 20.10.1979. This settlement was in respect of the service conditions including wages, D.A., etc. for the daily rated workmen. The settlement was to be in operation upto 31.12.1979. On 6.1.1981, the MGKU submitted a fresh charter of demands for both the daily rated workmen and the staff employed with the Petitioners. Since no settlement was arrived at, the Union resorted to the machinery constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act and obtained a reference for adjudication of the wage dispute. This reference was made in 1982. The statement of claim, justifying the demands was filed by MGKU on 14.10.1983. A written statement was filed by the Petitioner on 7.3.1983. The petitioner then entered into a settlement on 17.10.1983 with the union relating to the revision in wages, DA and other service conditions of daily rated workmen. The monthly rated staff continued to be governed by the service conditions mentioned in their respective appointment letters. The Petitioner, therefore, mentioned in its written statement that the Reference did not survive in view of the settlement between it and the daily rated workmen. The respondent union claimed that the workmen who are concerned in the reference had ceased to be members of the MGKU and had joined their union. They therefore, filed an additional statement of claim justifying the demands raised on behalf of the workmen in the charter of demands dated 6.1.1981. An additional written statement was also filed by the Petitioner. Preliminary objections were raised by the Petitioner by contending that the reference was misconceived and untenable in law since the charter of demands dated 6.1.1981 was not raised after terminating the earlier settlement dated 30.11.1979. It was also pleaded that the respondent -Kamgar Sabha had no locus to represent the workmen since the dispute was not espoused by them. The Petitioner, therefore, contended that the demand pertaining to the staff was liable to be rejected.

(3.) ON 9.5.1997, the Petitioner and the Respondent -Kamgar Sabha entered into a settlement in respect of the service conditions of daily rated workmen. The Union, therefore, pursued the reference only qua the monthly rated staff. In the year 2000, the Petitioner offered a certain revision in the service conditions of the staff which was not acceptable to the respondent -Union as payment of consolidated wages was to be continued. The reference, therefore, proceeded only qua the five members of the staff.