PATEL ALUMINIUM PVT LTD Vs. MAHARASHTRA SHRAMIK SENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10th January 2007 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the Writ petition No. 2364 of 2002 filed by the appellant.

(2.) Appellant is a private limited company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the manufacture of aluminium extruded products and aluminium circles and has its factory at goregaon, Mumbai. First Respondent is a Trade Union representing the workmen employed by the appellant. The workmen of the appellant were paid salary and allowances in accordance with the settlement entered in the year 1990, which expired in the year 1993. On 12th August 1993, the respondent submitted a Charter of Demand for revision of payscales and twenty other demands. As no agreement could be reached in conciliation proceedings, the matter was referred for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") by the Government of Maharashtra by an order dated 17th December 1996. Before the Tribunal, the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. After considering oral and documentary evidence adduced before it by the parties, the Tribunal partly allowed the demand for increase in the basic wages and granted rise in the basic wages for every workman at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month upto the year 1999, at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from January 2000 to december 2001 and at the rate of Rs. 650/- per month from January 2002 onwards. Rest of the demands of the union like special pay, increase in the dearness allowance, modification in the computation of gratuity, increase in the contribution to the provident fund, increase in the privileged leave, casual leave and other leaves, demand for allowances like educational allowance, house rent allowance, leave travel allowance, facilities of medical aid, free transport, interest free loan, festival advance, providing of rain coats and umbrella etc. were rejected. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal dated 30th May 2002, the appellant filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 2364 of 2002 in this court. By an impugned order dated 10th January 2007, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal did not properly consider and appreciate the financial position of the appellant and failed to appreciate that the appellant was incurring losses year after year and had no capacity to bear the burden of additional wages. The wages paid to the workmen were higher than the minimum wage fixed under the Minimum Wages Act and, therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have granted any increase in the wages when the appellant company was incurring losses and had no capacity to bear any additional burden. Counsel further submitted that the finding of the judgment of the Tribunal that there was functional integrality between different units operating in the same premises was erroneous and perverse. Counsel submitted that there were no pleadings about the functional integrality of different units in the compound and material before the Tribunal was insufficient to come to the conclusion of functional integrality between different units in the same premises. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in awarding increase in the wage on the basis the profit made by other units in the absence of any functional integrality between them. Counsel further submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in not interfering with the erroneous and perverse finding of the tribunal in that regard and ought to have set aside the Award of the Tribunal.