PARAMNATH SHITLAPRASAD MISHRA Vs. BOMBAY DYEING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have taken exception to the Judgment and Order dated 21st March 2003 passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court by which complaint (ULP) No. 669 of 1995 and complaint (ULP) No. 1322 of 1998 were dismissed.

(2.) COMPLAINT number 669 of 1995 was filed by the Petitioners and eight others against the first Respondent and its Officers. The complaint was filed alleging commission of unfair labour practice covered by Items 9 and 10 of Sch.IV of The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1971"). the complaint was filed by invoking the provisions of S.28 of the said Act of 1971.

(3.) THE allegation of the complainants is that the first Respondent -Company is a composite Textile Mill which having about 3,000 workers. It is stated that there are two Units of the Company and one of the Unit is at Naigaon, Mumbai. According to the case of the complainants, 63 workers were working in Texturising Department. On 15th April 1992, the first Respondent entered into an Agreement and reduced the number of employees. It is alleged that with a view to further reduce the number of employees, the workmen are being sent to other Departments. It is alleged that machines are purposefully kept closed. It is alleged that though the first Respondent - Company needs texturised yarn for production of terri -cotton, the permanent workers are being denied the work and the said work is being done from outside. It is contended the complaint that Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as "the said of 1946") is applicable to the first Respondent. A legal notice to change is mandatory while decreasing the number of workers in a Department or before shifting machines or workers. It is contended that after issuance of notice of change, an agreement is required to be signed and is required to be registered in accordance with the provisions of the said Act of 1946. It is alleged that without following the procedure contemplated by law, the first Respondent has reduced the number of workers in the Texturising Department. It is alleged that said Act is patently illegal. It is further alleged in the complaint that change in the production process, decrease in number of the workers working in Texturising Department and increase in number of the workers in other Departments amounts to unfair labour practice which is covered by Item 9 of Schedule IV of the said Act of 1946. It is alleged that the first Respondent and its Officers are threatening the workers and are sending them to other Departments. It is alleged that said action amounts deliberate act of coercion and is an unfair labour practice under Item 10 of Schedule 4 of the said Act of 1971.