EMERSON CLIMATE TECHNOLOGIES Vs. BHARATIYA KAMGAR KARMACHARI MAHASANGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-employer has filed this Petition challenging the Award dtd. 30/3/2024 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Satara answering Reference (I.T.) No.5 of 2013 in the affirmative and directing all the concerned workers to be made permanent by extending them benefits and status of permanent workers retrospectively from the date of raising of the Reference i.e. w.e.f. 20/9/2013.

(2.) Petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Hermetically sealed compressors having its registered office at Hinjewadi. It has one of its factories situated at Atit, District-Satara. Respondent is a registered trade union, which is not a recognised union in respect of Petitioner's factory at Atit under the provisions of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). Petitioner has a separate Union named Engineering Shramik Sanghatana, which is duly recognised under the provisions of MRTU & PULP Act with whom Petitioner has signed various settlements relating to permanent workmen employed in its factories. Respondent-Union represented 131 contract workers and espoused their cause with the Petitioneremployer. Petitioner claims that it had engaged 131 contract workers through a contractor-Mangal Enterprises since 6/5/2009. Petitioner had displayed and advertised a notice for filling up certain vacancies on permanent basis. The Respondent-Union demanded grant of permanency to 131 contract workers. Respondent-Union raised dispute by letter dtd. 1/9/2012 before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. The matter was taken in conciliation. After submission of failure report dtd. 21/8/2013, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour referred the dispute for adjudication to Industrial Tribunal at Satara by order dtd. 20/9/2013. The Reference was with regard to permanent absorption of members of Respondent-Union on account of completion of more than 240 days of service and to extend them all benefits payable to permanent workers with retrospective effect. Respondent-Union appeared before the Industrial Court and filed application for interim stay to the selection process initiated vide notice dtd. 17/10/2013. The Industrial Tribunal passed order staying the recruitment of new employees and restrained the Petitioner from recruiting any other person than members of the Respondent-Union.

(3.) Petitioner appeared before the Industrial Court and filed application seeking rejection of Reference on the ground that the Reference was not maintainable as it was being prosecuted by an unrecognised Union. The said application was resisted by the Respondent-Union by filing its reply. The Industrial Tribunal passed order dtd. 10/12/2013 conditionally permitting the Petitioner to make recruitment as per the recruitment process on the condition that till the reference was decided in favour of Respondent-Union, Petitioner would not act on the appointments made by them during pendency of the application. Respondent-Union thereafter filed its Statement of Claim dtd. 4/1/2014 seeking absorption of 131 members, who had completed 240 days of service alongwith all consequential benefits. The Claim was resisted by the Petitioner by filing its written statement. The Industrial Court rejected application filed by the Petitioner questioning maintainability of the Reference by order dtd. 9/11/2016. In the meantime, some orders were passed by the Industrial Tribunal directing the Petitioner to produce the documents. By order dtd. 18/6/2016, it restrained the Petitioner from granting status of permanency to workers other than members of RespondentUnion in pursuance of notice dtd. 17/10/2013 till final disposal of the Reference. Petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No.1990 of 2017 challenging orders dtd. 1/4/2014, 3/12/2015, 9/11/2016 and 18/6/2016, which came to be disposed of by recording consent terms and by setting aside order dtd. 18/6/2016 on understanding that appointments made in pursuance of notice dtd. 17/10/2013 would be subject to final outcome of the Reference. In the meantime, Petitioner had filed Writ Petition Nos.444 of 2020 and 451 of 2020 challenging the order dtd. 9/11/2016 rejecting its application questioning maintainability of the Reference. The Petitions came to be dismissed by this Court by order dtd. 24/1/2020. Petitioners filed SLP (C) Nos.5181-5182 of 2020 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it is averred in the Petition that the same is still pending.