BABURAO P TAWADE Vs. HES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India directed against on Order of the Industrial Court, Bombay dated September 26, 1988, made in Application (IDA) No. 1245 of 1982 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act".

(2.) The Petitioners are workmen employed in the First Respondent Company in its factory at Jogeshwari, where it manufactures time-pieces and allied horological equipments. The workmen of the First Respondent were formerly represented by a registered trade union, known as "Engineering Mazdoor Sabha", which had entered into a Settlement dated December 31, 1973, with the First Respondent on the conditions of service of the workmen. The settlement of 1973 expired on June 30, 1976. The Engineering Mazdoor Sabha gave a notice of termination of the said settlement and put forward a fresh Charter of Demands. In the meantime, another registered trade union, by Maine Association of Engineering Workers, came on the picture and claimed the support of the majority of the workmen in the establishment of the First Respondent. The First Respondent and Association of Engineering Workers entered into a Settlement dated September 22, 1979 under which the pay-scales and other conditions of service applicable to the workmen of the First Respondent were prescribed. The petitioners continued to be loyal to the Engineering Mazdoor Sabha and, therefore, were given no benefits under the said Settlement unless they accepted the terms of the settlement in toto. It is not in dispute that, under the said Settlement of 22nd September, 1979, the production norms stipulated in the Settlement dated December 31, 1973 were reiterated and adopted. On March 12, 1981, the Association of Engineering Workers was recognized as the recognised union for the undertaking of the First Respondent Company, under the provisions of Chapter III of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. After obtaining the status of a recognised union, the Association of Engineering Workers signed a Settlement with the First Respondent on January 12, 1982, on the subject of the bonus demand for the accounting year 1980. Vide clause 1 of this Settlement, the parties agreed that bonus for the accounting year 1980 would be paid at the minimum rate of 8.33% of the annual earnings, in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, Clause 2 of this Settlement is relevant for our purpose and reads :-

(3.) It is not in dispute that the Petitioners had initially refused to give the undertaking in the prescribed proforma, though they contended that they had given the production as per the stipulation contained in the Settlement dated September 22, 1979, even if the said Settlement was really not binding on them. Because of the Petitioners not giving the undertakings in the proforma prescribed in Annexure 'A' to the Settlement of January 12, 1982, the First Respondent refused to give them the additional ex gratia amount of Rs. 400/- payable under Clause (2) of the said Settlement. The Petitioners moved Application (IDA) No. 1245 of 1982 under Section 33-C(2) of the Act before the Labour Court, Bombay. It was their case in the application that they were entitled to the ex gratia amount of Rs. 400/- stipulated in Clause (2) of the Settlement dated January 12, 1982 as they had fulfilled the prerequisite conditions under which the said ex gratia amount was granted under Clause (2) of the said Settlement. While the Application (IDA) No. 1452 of 1982 was pending before the Labour Court, the Petitioners filed written undertaking in the proforma as per Annexure 'A' sometime in the year 1987. They also relied on an Order made by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Bombay, dated December 7, 1987 in Complaint (ULP) No. 68 of 1983 pertaining to the bonus for the accounting year 1981, claimed under the Settlement dated October 30, 1982, also containing an identical clause. Oral evidence was also led by the Petitioners to show that they had given required production all along from the year 1980. The Labour Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the claim by holding that the Petitioners had no right to get the benefit under the Settlement dated January 12, 1982 and that the application itself was not maintainable. It is this order which is impugned in the present petition.