BLUE STAR WORKERS UNION Vs. K D KOCHARGAONKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises out of a complaint filed by the petitioner union, which is a local union for the manufacturing plant of the 2nd respondent company at Thane, under Items 2(a), 2(b) and 3 of Schedule II and Item 10 Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ("the Act", for short). According to the petitioner, the company is indulging in unfair labour practices by entering into negotiation with the 6th respondent union, which has been formed recently by some of the workers working in Thane unit. The petitioner complaints that the company is deliberately avoiding entering into settlement with the petitioner and in order to break the petitioner union, the company is trying to encourage the 6th respondent union, which, according to the petitioner is employer sponsored union . The petitioner says that the company is acting in breach of the settlement between the company and the 7th respondent, a federation of which various local unions including the petitioner are the constituent members. According to the petitioner, the company has no right to negotiate with the 6th respondent as it will amount to violation of the said settlement. The petitioner has applied for interim injunction before the Industrial Court by filing application Exhibit U-2.

(2.) THE Industrial Court has extensively dealt with the various contentions advanced by the union. THE Industrial Court has held that the petitioner has failed to make out a prima facie case of unfair labour practice as contemplated by Items 2(a), 2(b) of Schedule II and Item 10 of Schedule IV of the Act. THE Industrial Court has come to a conclusion that there is absolutely no material to show that the company is trying to dominate, interfere with or contribute support - financial or otherwise - to the 6th respondent union. THE Industrial Court has also held that there is no material to show that the employer is taking an active interest in organising the 6th respondent union or showing partiality or granting favour to the said union. THE Industrial Court has also negatived the allegation that the company is trying to establish employer sponsored union. In that view of the matter, the Industrial Court dismissed application Exhibit U-2 for interim reliefs.

(3.) ON the oral application of Mr. Dharap, ad-interim relief granted by this Court on January 16, 1995 is continued for a period of two weeks. Certified copy expedited. Petition dismissed.