KRISHNA GOPAL VAITY Vs. COLLINS AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition, the petitioner workman takes an exception to an award dated 14-5-1993 passed by the Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Bombay in charge 13th Labour Court at Bombay.

(2.) THE petitioner initially joined the employment of the respondent Company as a Die Maker in the year 1964 and came to be promoted as highly skilled worker in the year 1965 in the Tool Room Department of the respondent company. During the period of 1970-72 the petitioner was elected as a Committee Member of the Bhartiye Kamgar Sena representing workers of Tool Room, Machine Shop and Maintenance Department of the Respondent company. After the year 1972, the petitioner ceased to be the Committee member of the union, as such did not have any authority to represent the workmen. THE workmen of Tool Room Department had made certain demands/ grievances touching the promotion/ classification, sometime in August 1974. It is the case of the petitioner that since the management of the respondent Company found it difficult to resolve the issue of promotion/ classification of the employees working in the Tool Room department, the partner of the company called him to assist the respondent in resolving the said issue. On 17-9-1974 the respondent company issued letters granting special increment to 9 of the workmen of the Tool Room Department instead of granting promotion to the post of highly skilled grade. THE petitioner further claims that the said 9 workmen refused to accept the letter of increment as they wanted promotion to the highly skilled grade. Thus the partner of the respondent company once again called petitioner to pursue the workers to accept the letters of special increments in lieu of their demand for promotion. According to the petitioner, as the demands of the workers were justified and as the management was deliberately and intentionally declining to concede to the said demand, the petitioner expressed his inability to help the management in that regard and it is for this reason, according to him, he was falsely implicated and proceeded against in a departmental enquiry on concocted charges. THE charges against the petitioner were to the following effect:

(3.) THE petitioner being aggrieved thereby, preferred a writ petition, bearing Writ Petition No.62 of 1981 before this court. By the judgment dated 13-3-1990 High Court was pleased to allow the writ petition and proceeded to set aside the award dated 29-4-1980 and remanded the matter to the Labour court for fresh adjudication in the light of observations made in the judgment. After the remand by the High court, the labour court was pleased to hear the parties afresh and passed an award granting reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages to the petitioner. Aggrieved by this exparte award passed by the labour court on 31-12-1990 the respondent company preferred a writ petition bearing W.P.No.3410 of 1991. THE learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition at the stage of admission. However in an appeal filed by the respondent company bearing Appeal No.1128 of 1991 before the Division Bench of this court, Minutes of the Order were filed. As per the said Minutes, the company deposited a sum of Rs.2,21,000/- and the matter was remanded to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication. After remand of the matter in terms of Minutes of Order dated 6-1-1992, the Labour court heard the matter afresh and passed an Award on 14-5-1993. It is this Award, the legality and validity of which, is the subject matter of the present writ petition.