POONA EMPLOYEES’ UNION Vs. FORCE MOTORS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dtd. 16/12/2014 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 229 of 2008.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the present petition, as set out by the petitioner, are as follows. The petitioner is a registered trade union representing a majority of the employees employed in the respondent-factory. Prior to the year 2002, the employees were members of Bhartiya Kamgar Sena, which was a recognised union. The last settlement executed with the said recognised union expired on 31/12/2003. Thereafter, no settlement has been executed either with the petitioner-union or otherwise, nor has there been any revision in the service conditions or pay scales of the employees. The service conditions of the employees continue to be governed by the Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. It is the case of the petitioner that in or about the year 2002, a substantial number of employees of the respondent-company resigned from the membership of Bhartiya Kamgar Sena and joined the petitioner-union. The petitioner thereafter filed an application before the Industrial Court at Pune seeking de-recognition of Bhartiya Kamgar Sena. By an order dtd. 22/3/2006, the Industrial Court cancelled the recognition granted to Bhartiya Kamgar Sena and accorded recognition to the petitioner-union. The said order was challenged both by the respondent-company and Bhartiya Kamgar Sena by filing separate writ petitions, which came to be allowed by judgment and order dtd. 2/2/2009. It is further the case of the petitioner that although by an order dtd. 14/10/2004 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 8140 of 2004, Bhartiya Kamgar Sena was permitted to negotiate with the management, no settlement was arrived at. Instead, the respondent- company unilaterally introduced a scheme titled "Helping Hand Group Incentive Scheme" with effect from 1/7/2007. The said scheme was based on a "Group Performance Index", which was determined solely by the respondent-company. Under the scheme, workmen were classified into different groups, namely production group, production support group, and standard managerial support group. The terms and conditions of the scheme were unilaterally determined by the respondent-company. No undertaking was required from individual workmen for availing the benefits under the scheme. Incentive amounts were paid to all workmen except two. The benefits under the scheme were extended for the period from 1/7/2005 to 30/9/2006.

(3.) The petitioner has further contended that this Court, by an interim order dtd. 27/4/2006 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 2907 of 2006 and 2878 of 2006, directed the parties to maintain status quo as on that date. It is alleged that in breach of the said order, the respondent-company discontinued the earlier scheme on 14/10/2006 and introduced another scheme titled "Helping Hand New Group Incentive Scheme", which was operative only for the month of October 2006. Even under this scheme, no undertaking was required from the workmen. Thereafter, the respondent-company represented before the authorities that the scheme was discontinued due to demand from workers. In November 2006, the respondent-company introduced yet another scheme styled as "Notice Scheme". The said scheme retained the same grouping of workmen and incentive structure based on the Group Performance Index, which continued to be determined by the respondent-company. However, under this scheme, individual workmen were required to submit undertakings for availing the benefits. It is alleged that the scheme was not voluntary in nature, as workmen were compelled to join groups and achieve production targets irrespective of their consent. The petitioner contends that the scheme was introduced in violation of the status quo order dtd. 27/4/2006 and was in substance a productivity-linked scheme imposed unilaterally by the management, with all operational aspects being controlled by the Chairman and Managing Director. It is further the case of the petitioner that under the "Notice Scheme", special personal pay and incentives were paid to workmen based on the performance index of the respective group, as determined by the respondent-company. The functioning of the scheme lacked transparency. Only limited information was displayed through notices indicating division-wise Group Performance Index and incentive amounts, without disclosing names of individual beneficiaries. Despite specific directions, the respondent-company did not furnish complete details of workmen who were granted or denied the benefits under the scheme. The petitioner submits that the discriminatory implementation of the scheme led to dissatisfaction among workmen, many of whom were arbitrarily denied benefits. In April 2008, affected workmen raised demands before the management. As there was no response from the respondent-company, the concerned workmen approached the Labour Officer, Pune by submitting intervention letters. A list of such workmen was produced before the Industrial Court at Exhibit U-27 dtd. 10/7/2014. The respondent-company, by its reply dtd. 22/7/2008, stated that those workmen who were denied benefits were members of the petitioner-union.