SARVA SHRAMIK SANGHATANA Vs. GUPTA STEEL INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present writ petition instituted under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to assail the Judgment and Orders dtd. 19/7/2000 and 29/7/2002 rendered by the Industrial Court at Pune in Complaint (ULP) No.150 of 1993.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present petition, as set out by the petitioner, may be stated thus. Pursuant to a lease deed dtd. 9/4/1980 executed between M/s Jolly Steel Industries and M/s Gupta Steel Industries, the industrial establishment situated at Nagar Road came to be taken on lease by M/s Gupta Steel Industries, who is respondent No.1 herein. In terms of the said lease arrangement, the employees working under respondent Nos.3 and 4 were requisitioned by respondent No.1, and accordingly approximately 50 employees came to be transferred to respondent No.1 with continuity of service and without any interruption in their past service. It is further the case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 independently engaged more than 50 additional employees apart from those transferred. The petitioner-Union was, even prior to the execution of the lease deed, functioning as a representative union of the said employees. It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not permit the employees to resume duties with effect from 6/3/1993. In these circumstances, the petitioner-Union instituted a complaint against respondent Nos.1 and 2, asserting that despite the employees being ready and willing to discharge their duties in accordance with the terms of employment, the respondents failed to provide work from the said date. It was further alleged that the respondents failed to perform their corresponding obligations under the contract of employment and did not permit the employees to resume duties from 6/3/1993. No notice of such action was issued either to the employees or to the petitioner-Union. According to the petitioner, such conduct on the part of respondent Nos.1 and 2 amounted to serious unfair labour practices. Consequently, the petitioner- Union lodged Complaint (ULP) No.150 of 1993 before the Industrial Court at Pune under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971.

(3.) The complaint, in the first instance, was instituted only against respondent Nos.1 and 2. The said respondents filed a joint written statement opposing the complaint. It was contended therein that M/s Jolly Steel Industries had locked the premises and that disputes in that regard were pending before the High Court. It was further contended by respondent No.1 that the electricity supply to the establishment had been disconnected by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board. Additionally, it was asserted that the employees had resorted to an illegal strike with effect from 6/3/1993. On these grounds, the allegations of unfair labour practices were denied.