HARISHCHANDRA HAQIQATRAI CHHABRA Vs. CHAMRAJ SUBHUKRISHNA KRISHNA SWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order of the Industrial Court dated November 28, 1986 made in Complaint (ULP) Nos. 404 to 407 of 1985 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and typifies the jeopardy, into which the workmen are thrown when brothers in business quarrel and bring the business crashing down.

(2.) THE present petitioners are the legal heirs of Harishchandra Hagigatrai Chhabra, who is now deceased. (For the sake of brevity, and convenience. deceased Harishchandra Hagigatrai chhabra will be referred to as "the petitioner" in this judgment. The petitioner and Respondent no. 6 are brothers in full blood. They were partners in several businesses and were also running some businesses in their own respective rights as sole proprietors. Respondent No. 5, M/s. Ball and Roller Bearing Company, was one of such family partnership concerns in which the mother of the petitioner and the Sixth Respondent were partners. According to the Sixth Respondent, april 1, 1976, the petitioner. by his conduct of addressing letters to their bankers, effected an assignment of the partnership businesses and thereby ceased to have any right, title or interest in the business of the Fifth Respondent from April 1, 1976. The Sixth Respondent claimed that, as and from April 1, 1976, the business of the Fifth Respondent concern became his sole proprietary business and the petitioner had no connection with or interest in it. Some time in july, 1976 the petitioner filed a suit, S. C. No. 4921 of 1976, before the City Civil Court at bombay, alleging that he had not ceased to be partner in the business of the Fifth Respondent. He claimed a declaration that he continued as a partner of the Fifth Respondent partnership and also sought appropriate reliefs by way of accounts and injunction to protect his interests. Though, initially, the Bombay City Civil Court had appointed a Receiver of the business of the fifth Respondent and had also granted an interim injunction restraining the Sixth respondent from carrying on the business, the interim reliefs granted by the Bombay City Civil Court came to be modified by a consent order made in terms of Consent terms dated August 3, 1976. Under the Consent Terms it was agreed that the injunction and the order for Receiver would be vacated and, until further orders of the Court, all sales, purchases and payments in respect of the present respondent No. 5 and three other concerns would be effected by the consent of the petitioner and the Sixth Respondent. There were also arrangements made for diverting the pending orders and for utilisation of the stocks from one such concern to another. What is important for the purpose of the present Writ Petition is clause (c) of paragraph 1 of the Consent Terms making provision with regard to the staff employed in the business. The said clause reads :

(3.) RESPONDENTS 1 to 4 were working as employees of the Fifth Respondent concern. Respondents 1 to 4 filed Complaints (ULP) No. 404 to 407 of 1985 before the Industrial Court, bombay under Section 28 read with Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act, alleging that though they continued to be the workmen of Respondent No. 5, their wages had not been paid since May 7, 1985 and that, by not doing so, their employer had committed an Unfair Labour Practice of failure to implement an Agreement/award/settlement in respect of them, within the meaning of item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. In their complaints, Respondents 1 to 4 impleaded the present fifth Respondent as the First Respondent and the petitioner and the Sixth Respondent as party respondents. In fact, in the complaint the grievance made was that there was a dispute between the petitioner and the Sixth Respondent as to whether the Fifth Respondent was a proprietary concern of the Sixth Respondent or a partnership business in which the petitioner had interest and that, despite the Consent Order dated August 3, 1976 filed in Suit No. 4921 of 1976 before the Bombay City Civil Court, which continued to be operative and binding on the parties requiring the parties jointly to fulfill and discharge their respective obligations in respect of third parties, including the employees, the employees had not been paid their wages because of the internal quarrels between the brothers. The complainants specifically averred that all three respondents to the complaints (present Fifth Respondent, Petitioner and Sixth Respondent) were the employers and were equally engaging in the Unfair Labour Practice alleged. The Industrial court tried the said complaints and, by the impugned order, declared that all the Respondents to the Complaints (i. e. the present Fifth Respondent) petitioner and sixth respondent had indulged in and were indulging in the Unfair Labour Practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act and directed the present Respondents 1 to 4 to pay to the complainants their earned wages from 1st april, 1985 within one month from the date of the order and to continue to pay their earned wages for the subsequent months on or before the 7th of the next month till their services were dispensed with. It is this order which is impugned in the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioners.