SURENDRA CHOUDHARY Vs. NITIN CASTINGS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bunch of four petitions can be conveniently disposed of by common order as it involves an identical question and practically identical submission are canvassed. For obvious reasons the impugned order is unsustainable and since the remand is inevitable a detailed discussion is un-necessary.

(2.) A complaint came to be filed by the petitioners in all the petitions making certain grievances that there has been a breach of agreement by the respondent-employer which amounts to an Unfair Labour Practice within the meaning of certain items of schedule (4) and especially item No. 9 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act the details of which need not be stated. This came to be filed in the Industrial Court. All these complaints came to be resisted on behalf of the first respondent-employer on all the counts.

(3.) The sum and substance of the grievance is that in view of a certain settlement arrived at between the parties somewhere in the year 1983 it was stipulated and agreed that these petitioners-workers shall be paid subsistence allowance for the interim period till the dispute is finally adjudicated upon. In view of this settlement as per the petitioners' case they were being paid the subsistence allowance as agreed upon upto October 1984. The real dispute, however, commenced thereafter inasmuch as the said allowance for the months of November and December 1984 and January 1985 was withheld. The said allowance was required to be paid on or before 7th day of the next succeeding month. On account of this with holding which according to the workers was unjustified that four complaints came to be filed under the said Act in the Industrial Court on 25th of March, 1985.