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 an order of the Industrial Court, Bombay, dated 26th September, 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 31st December, 1973, with the first respondent on the conditions of service of the workmen. The settlement of 1973 expired on 30th June, 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 name 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 22nd September, 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 31st December, 1973 were reiterated and adopted. On 12th March, 1981, the Association of Engineering Workers was recognised 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 12th January, 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 22nd September, 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 12th January, 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 12th January, 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 some time in the year 1987. They also relied on an order made by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Bombay, dated 7th December, 1987 in Complaint (ULP) No. 68 of 1983 pertaining to the bonus for the accounting year 1981, claimed under the settlement dated 30th October, 1982, also containing an identical clause. Oral evidence was also led by the petitioners to show that they had given the 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 12th January, 1982 and that the application itself was not maintainable. It is this order which is impugned in the present petition.