PRAKASH COTTON MILLS LTD Vs. CHANDRAKANT MARUTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition seeks to impugn the correctness of an order dated 26th July, 2001 passed by the Industrial Court at Mumbai. The industrial Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner had engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The petitioner has been directed to give permanency to the 4 complainant workmen, who are respondents before the Court in these proceedings, in the russian Department instead of the Auto Weaving Department where they were confirmed. The petitioner has been directed to pay wages at par with the wages paid to workers in the Russian Department in similar posts, for the days on which the respondents have been treated as having refused to work.

(2.) The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The respondents were badli workers who were engaged initially in the year 1986. The workmen were posted in the Plain Department and were assigned work on Plain machines. In 1990 upon the purchase of Russian looms, the Russian Department was formed ; by the petitioner and all the complainant workmen worked from 1990 at these russian looms as badli workers. They worked in the Russian Department until 1st March, 1999 when they were made permanent by the petitioner. Prior to the grant of permanency, the respondents had raised a dispute claiming permanency which was admitted in conciliation. The grievance of the workers was with respect to the grant of permanency to them in the Auto Weaving Department instead of the Russian Department. According to them, with effect from 5th august, 1999 they were not given any work and the attendance card from 11th august, 1999 was endorsed to the effect that they had refused to work. Accordingly, a complaint was filed alleging the commission of unfair labour practices under Items 3, 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The contention of the workmen was that they are entitled to work in the russian Department alone.

(3.) The petitioner filed a written statement denying the allegations in the complaint. According to the petitioner the claim for the grant of permanency in a particular department viz. Russian Department was untenable. The petitioner claimed that there was no assurance to the respondents that they would be continued only in the Russian Department.