FINLAY MILLS Vs. SUPRIYA S GHUGARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed challenging the order dt.4.12.2002 passed in Complaint (ULP) No.169 of 1996. By the said order, the Industrial Court, Bombay has declared that the petitioners have engaged in unfair labour practices under Item 5, 9 and 10 r/w Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. By the said order, the petitioners are further directed to allow the complainant to report and resume on her duty in her original post with full back wages and other monetary benefits and continuity of service with effect from the date on which the respondent Mill is taken over by the N.T.C. The petitioners are also directed to allow the complainant to resume on duty in her original post within one month from the date of the said order and further directed that the said back wages be paid with interest @ 6% p.a. Some of the material facts of the present case are briefly enumerated as under:

(2.) Finlay Mills was declared a sick undertaking and was taken over by N.T.C. on 18.1.82. On account of general strike in the mills, the work of the petitioner mill was paralysed and an application was made to declare the said strike illegal. The said strike was accordingly declared illegal by the Labour Court. Subsequently, petitioner mill restarted functioning after the strike was over. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent did not approach the petitioner for resuming her duties nor showed any interest to contact a representative union of the Cotton Textile Industry in the city of Mumbai. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent had abandoned her services.The respondent was working in R & T department as a Semi Clerk and was confirmed in the said post. Thereafter she was promoted as an Investigator in the said department and she continued to work in the said company. She proceeded on maternity leave for the period June 1982 to August 1982. It is the case of the petitioner that however, on completion of maternity leave she did not resume her duty with the petitioner mill. Sometime in or about 1988-89, the petitioner entered into correspondence with the General Manager of Apollo Mills and the Bio-data was sent to the Apollo Mills on 30.3.91. It is the case of the petitioner that however, thereafter respondent did not make any efforts to resume the job whereas the case of the respondent is that respondent went on approaching the Mill from time to time right from 1982-83 till 1990 and even after 1990 respondent has approached various authorities including concerned Ministry and Government to seek the employment back. On 22.12.95 an approach notice was issued by the respondent under the provisions of BIR Act and subsequently a complaint was moved before the Industrial Court under item 5, 9 and 10 r/w Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.

(3.) It is the case of the respondent that inspite of efforts to resume the work, respondent was not allowed to resume her duties and therefore it is contended by the respondent that there is a breach of the settlement between the parties and thus, the petitioners have committed an unfair labour practice by virtue of item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and Pulp Act, 1971. On 15.7.99 the complaint was dismissed on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction. The said order was challenged by preferring a writ petition being writ petition no.2223 of 1999. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dt.5.6.02 remanding the matter back to the industrial court for adjudication on merits. On remand the matter was heard and by the impugned order dt.14.12.2002 the Industrial Court has allowed the complaint of the petitioners and directed the reinstatement of the respondent workman in the said job with aforesaid direction of back wages with interest @ 6% p.a. and continuity of service.