INTHRU NORONHA Vs. COLGATE PALMOLIVE INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises out of an order of the industrial Court dismissing a complaint filed by the petitioner complaining of unfair labour practice under Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV to the maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour practices Act, 1971 ("the Act"). The petitioner joined the service of a company known by the name of Ciba of India Limited (later Known as Hindustan Ciba geigy Limited) on 1st June, 1965 initially as a typist. He was then appointed as a Punch Operator. On 2nd March, 1990 he was promoted with effect from 1st January, 1990 to the post of an Assistant in the Executive cadre. The petitioner was informed that as a result, with effect from the date of his promotion, his remuneration package would be as indicated in the contract of employment that was furnished to him; that in the matter or gratuity he would be governed by the scheme that was applicable to the executive staff and that he would become a member of the pension scheme applicable to the executive staff with effect from January, 1990. The contract of employment provided that the petitioner shall retire from service at the end of the month in which he would attain the age of superannuation of 58 years.

(2.) The oral hygiene business of Hindustan Ciba Geigy Limited was transferred to the first respondent, Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited, from 1st October, 1994. The services of the petitioner were accordingly transferred to the first respondent and by a letter dated 24th September, 1994 he was informed that his services will not be interrupted due to the transfer and that it would be ensured that the terms and conditions of service that were offered would be as then applicable in Hindustan Ciba Geigy Limited. On 17th May, 1995, the first respondent informed the petitioner that his salary and benefits were being revised from 1st April, 1995 in accordance with the wage structure of the company that was applicable to employees in the management cadre. The total emoluments of the petitioner stood increased as a result to Rs. 25,625/ -. On 8th February, 1999 the first respondent addressed a letter to the petitioner informing him that under the superannuation rules he was due to retire on completing the age of 58 which in the case of the petitioner was 25th february, 1999.

(3.) The petitioner moved the Industrial Court in a complaint of unfair labour practices under Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act on 23rd march, 1999. The petitioner claimed therein that the work which he was doing was of a clerical nature; that he was, therefore, for all intents and purposes a workman under section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and hence, an 'employee' within the meaning of the Maharashtra recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Practices Act, 1971. The material part of the complaint which would be relevant for the decision of this case was thus: