WESTERN MAHARASHTRA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. Vs. WESTERN MAHARASHTRA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION, PUNE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner Western Maharashtra Development Corporation challenges the order passed by the Industrial Court dated 11 April 2000, restraining the Petitioner Corporation from recovering and withdrawing the special increments granted to its employees by resolution dated 29 November 1994.

(2.) The Respondent Union Filed The Complaint (Ulp) No.366 Of 1995 in the Industrial Court, Pune, under Section 28 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, contending: The Respondent Corporation, which was incorporated 25 years ago, is managed by a Managing Director appointed by the State Government. The Corporation engages around 137 employees in the different categories. The appointments are done by the Managing Director. The finances of the Corporation are independent and no resources of the State Government or Union Government, are involved. The provisions of Model Standing Orders as well as all the labour laws are applicable to the Corporation. The Corporation, on account of its Silver Jubilee, passed a resolution on 29 November 1994 and granted certain special increments to its employees. Those who had completed services upto 8 years, were granted one increment; those employees who had completed 8 to 16 years were granted two increments; and those who had completed 16 years and above, were granted three increments. Bonus and dividend was also declared. However, without issuing any Notice of Change under the provisions of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Respondent Corporation was proposing to withdraw these benefits. Therefore, it was necessary to restrain the Respondent Corporation from doing so as their action amounted to an unfair labour practice.

(3.) The Petitioner Corporation Filed Its Reply And Contended: The Respondent Corporation is not independent of the control of the State Government and the State Government has control for regulating its finances. Though by way of Board resolution dated 21 November 1994 certain special increments were given, it was without the prior approval of the Government. Since it was without prior approval, the Petitioner Corporation again held a meeting on 30 September 1995 and resolved to approach the Government and kept the special increments in abeyance. In view of this position, no unfair labour practice was committed.