ALL INDIA LABOUR UNION Vs. JEEWANLAL 1929 LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against an order passed by a Member of the Industrial Court in relation to interim relief claimed in a complaint (ULP) moved under Schedule IV Item No. 9 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (PULP Act).

(2.) The points that arise for determination in the instant petition have to be considered in the following background: Respondent No. 1 (employer) is doing business in the name and style of M/s. Crown Aluminium Works, Bombay and it has a labour force of about 100 workers. In the year 1981, a dispute arose between the employer and the workers in relation to pay allowances and other conditions of employment. On August 20, 1981 through the mediation of the Conciliation Officer, the employer and the workmen came to an amicable settlement which was reduced to writing in a memorandum , dated 20.8.1981. Under this settlement, the workers were to be paid a particular wage for the period of five years, which period, was to come to an end on 31.7.1986. On 6.4.1985, i.e. quite sometime before the date stipulated for the expiry of the settlement, the employer addressed a notice to the petitioner - which was a recognised Union at this date of its desire to effect certain changes as detailed in the annexure 'A'. This purported to be a notice of change under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D Act). Briefly stated, under the notice the employer proposed to effect a substantial reduction in the wages payable to its different classes of workers. The change was opposed by the petitioner, whereupon the matter went to the Conciliation Officer. The Conciliation Officer on 23.5.1985, recorded his inability to bring about a settlement and informed parties of having sent a letter to that effect to the Government in the Industries, Energy and Labour Department. The employer gave effect to the change, and on 8.6.1986, the petitioner sent a letter of protest. In due course, came to be filed Complaint (ULP) No. 519 of 1985 in the Industrial Court. Interim relief was sought under Section 30 of the PULP Act calling for an order to the employer to desist from implementing the change proposed by the notice. The contention was that merely giving a notice of change did not authorise the employer to implement the said change. This was because until the settlement of 1981 was substituted by another settlement or adjudication, the employer had no right to give effect to the change proposed in the notice. The contravention of the statute was patent, and therefore, an interim direction had to be issued to restrain the same. The employer opposed the interim relief claimed on a number of grounds. Firstly, it was contended that the complaint lodged by the workmen could not be said to be within the purview of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the PULP Act. Secondly, it was contended that the reduction in the wages carried out by the employer was after giving notice and pursuant to the terms of the settlement. The said settlement permitted the employer to effect a reduction in the wages in the event of misconduct or go slow or non-cooperation on the part of the workers. It was all these factors which had brought the employer to the verge of ruin. Therefore, it could not be said that any illegal change had been given notice of or had been carried out by the employer. Thirdly, there was the bar of Section 59 of the PULP Act. Proceedings under the ID Act had already begun, and for that reason, Section 59 of the PULP Act applied. Lastly, the petitioner could not in the guise of interim relief seek something which was sought as the final remedy in the complaint.

(3.) The learned Member of the Industrial Court before whom the matter came up, held that prima-facie Section 59 of the PULP Act barred the complaint, that no prima-facie case had been made out to warrant the grant of interim relief, that Section 9A of the ID Act could not be said to have been violated and that it did not appear that there had been a violation of the terms of the settlement of 1981. Aggrieved by this order, the recognised Union has moved the present, petition. As interim relief, employer has been directed to pay to the workers wages and D.A. at 75% of the wage level prevailing as on June 5, 1985. Having regard to the submissions made before me, the points for determination are:- (1) Whether the complaint moved by the petitioner was prima-facie maintainable? (2) Did the petitioner prove a prima facie contravention of the law ? (3) What order ? My findings, for reasons given below, are:- (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) See order. REASONS