HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED Vs. HINDUSTAN LEVER MAZDOOR SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges in this writ petition the order of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Bombay, passed in Complaint (ULP) No. 751 of 1982 dated 27-7-1995. By this order the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Bombay, has allowed the complaint filed by the first respondent under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971, holding that the petitioner has committed unfair labour practice by non-implementation of the settlement dated 27-1-1971 and also by refusal to negotiate with the first respondent. The Industrial Court based on facts pleaded before it framed the following four issues.

(2.) WHETHER the case is barred by limitation?. Whether the complaint is barred by principle of res judicata?

(3.) THE petitioner is a company and the first respondent is a Trade Union working in the petitioner company. It is alleged in the complaint filed by the first respondent before the Industrial Court that by correspondence exchanged between the parties in the year 1957 certain agreement has been reached between them. One of the conditions of the agreement was that the petitioner will not contest in any future dispute the status of the members of the field force such as salesman, sales supervisor, trade mark investigator, seed buyers etc. as workman. In other words, according to the said agreement, the status of the field force as workman will not be questioned by the petitioner in the matter of their service conditions and Industrial Tribunal or Court at Bombay will have jurisdiction to decide such matter relating to the field force of the first respondent. It is further alleged in the complaint that sometime in the year 1970 the Bombay Centre of the first respondent Sabha served a charter of demand on the petitioner company which not only pertains to the members of the Bombay branch field force but also to the other clerical staff in the petitioner companys Bombay Offices and the same came to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication and the status of the field force came to be disputed by the Company as not being workmen under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The said reference is numbered as Reference (IT) No. 203 of 1970. The said reference has culminated into an award by Mr. Justice Chitale holding that the members of the field force are not workmen. This award was passed on 6-1-1975. It is to be noted that the said award was taken to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the first respondent. It is further alleged that during the pendency of this reference the petitioner company on 27-1-1971 entered into an All India settlement on the charter of demands on behalf of the members of the field force but did not implement the same as far as the Bombay Region field force was concerned since the reference was pending adjudication before the aforesaid Tribunal of Mr. Justice Chitale. It is the further contention of the first respondent that immediately on the pronouncement of the award of Mr. Justice Chitale in Reference (IT) No. 203 of 1970 the petitioner company by individual letters addressed to members of the field force and informed them that the benefit under the settlement dated 27-1-1971 has been withdrawn and it is alleged that this withdrawal has been accepted by the individual employees.