THORAT R A Vs. TRINITY UDYOG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions arise under the same set of circumstances and raise common issues of fact and law. Hence they can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) THE petitioner in each writ petition is an ex-employee of the First Respondent concern. The first Respondent is a small concern which was carrying on initially the business of hacksaw cutting activity in its factory on plot No. 151 in S-Block at Bhosari, Pune. Some time in 1980 the first Respondent also started heat treatment operations. Since the place in Plot No. 151 was inadequate for carrying out both hack-saw cutting activity and heat treatment operations, the first Respondent requested the adjoining factory, by name Trinity Forge, to permit the hack-saw cutting operations to be carried out on the adjoining plot No. 152 belonging to Trinity Forge. It is not disputed that there were some, business connections between the First' Respondent (Trinity udyog) and the said Trinity Forge. There was a dispute between the workman of the First respondent and the First Respondent on the issue of the quantum of bonus to be paid for the accounting Year 1984-85. There was industrial unrest and the work of the Hack-saw operations came down considerably to about 35 per cent of what it originally was. The industrial agitation reached such a pitch that the First Respondent decided to close down its Hack-saw operations. By a notice dated May 28, 1986, the First Respondent closed down its Hacksaw Department and terminated the services of all workmen in the Hack-saw Department with effect from May 29, 1986. Simultaneously, the workmen were offered amounts equivalent to notice pay and retrenchment compensation, apart from other legal dues. The workmen refused to accept the same. The Petitioners in the two petitions raised industrial disputes with regard to their retrenchment and the said disputes came to be referred to the Labour Court at Pune vide reference (IDA) No. 377 of 1988 (in Writ Petition No. 162 of 1992) and Reference (IDA)No. 378 of 1988 (in Writ Petition No. 302 of 1992 ). The Labour Court tried the references and held that the references were not maintainable as an earlier complaint (ULP) No. 220 of 1986 had been filed on behalf of the workmen of the First Respondent before the Industrial Court at Pune in which the cause of action and the relief sought were identical and, therefore, the reference under the Industrial Disputes Act was barred by Section 59 of the Maharashtra Recognition of trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act. On merits, the Labour Court took the view that there was sufficient cause to close down the Hack-saw Department and no malafides on the part of the First Respondent were proved. It also held that the First Respondent had complied with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act by contemporaneously offering notice pay, closure compensation which was equivalent to retrenchment compensation under section 25-F, wages in lieu of accumulated leave and all other dues in accordance with law. In these circumstances, the Labour Court took the view that the Petitioner was not entitled to any relief and rejected the reference. Hence these writ petitions.

(3.) SHRI Dharap, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner in each petition, has strenuously attacked the findings of the Labour Court in the impugned. A ward on the issue of maintainability as well as on merit. He urges that the earlier complaint filed by the Union on behalf of the Petitioner workmen, i. e. Complaint (ULP) No. 220 of 1986, was a complaint invoking the provisions of Item 1 (a) and (b), 4 (f) of Schedule II and 1 (a), (b) and (d), 8 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act wherein the contention was that there was an unfair labour practice on the part of the First Respondent and it was incidentally contended that the termination of services of the petitioner workmen was a consequence of the said unfair labour practice. He further contends that in the references before the Labour Court: the issue that was directly referred was the industrial dispute with regard to the illegal and improper termination of services of the petitioner workmen. In the submission of the learned Advocate the parameters of the jurisdiction of the two fora were different, the causes of action as well as the final reliefs sought were different and, therefore, the fact that the relief of reinstatement of the Petitioner workmen incidentally sought in Complaint (ULP) No. 220 of 1986 would not bar the complaints of the present writ Petitioners wherein substantive relief of back-wages and continuity in service were sought. Shri Dharap brought to my notice several judgments of this Court on the issue, which need to be considered to decide the controversy.