MADURA COATS LIMITED Vs. S L MEHENDLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner company has approached this Court to quash and set aside the order dated 30th June, 1995 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 1044 of 1988. The complaint was preferred by respondent No. 2 -Trade Union alleging that the petitioner had engaged in unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act. In short the contention of the respondent No. 2 was that the wages of the office bearers of the Union, who had gone to attend the proceedings before the courts had been deducted contrary to the provisions of section 23 of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act and even otherwise it is contended that the deduction was made without giving an opportunity to the office bearers of respondent No. 2 and it was, therefore, clearly in breach of the principles of natural justice and fair play and even otherwise it was not as contemplated by the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act.

(2.) THE Industrial Court by the impugned order was pleased to deal with various contentions of the petitioner and was pleased to hold that the petitioner herein had violated the provisions of section 23 of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act and that the deduction of wages by the petitioners was illegal. It also held that the petitioner had committed unfair labour practice under Item No. 9 of Schedule IV of the Act and that the respondent No. 2 was entitled to the relief prayed for. The order of the Industrial Court shows that there was a long standing practice by which the petitioners would permit the office bearers of the respondent No. 2 to attend the proceedings filed by or against respondent No. 2 or its members and for that purpose would not deduct wages. It also shows that the office bearers of the respondent No. 2 after doing their work used to report back for duty if time permitted. It has also dealt with the argument that for the purpose of giving effect to section 23 of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act it must be shown that the office bearers appeared or acted. It also dealt with the argument that the Certificate produced by the office bearers did not show that they appeared or acted and consequently no unfair labour practice had been committed by the petitioners. The Industrial Court has rejected the contentions of the petitioners and held that in terms of section 23 the office bearers are entitled to be paid wages for the entire day and there is no question of the office bearers reporting back to duty and hence the petition.

(3.) SHRI Naik on behalf of the petitioners has submitted as under :--he word "appear" or "act" appearing in section 23 of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act must mean to represent or put in an appearance on behalf of the party and not mere assistance to lawyers. For that purpose he has relied on a Division Bench judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of (Girish Kanjibhai Patel and others v. State of Gujarat and others) reported in 1995 (II) C. L. P. 964. The second submission is that the certificate produced by the office bearers of the respondent No. 2 did not show that they have appeared or acted, to avail of the benefits of section 23 and consequently if the petitioners had made deduction in the wages it could not be said that the petitioners had committed an act of unfair labour practice as it is normally understood. The third submission is that the permission to the office bearers to represent the Union is based on a long standing practise and not based on section 23 of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act. It is contended that the practise as understood was that the office bearers would represent the petitioners in proceedings before various forums and after the proceedings stood adjourned or disposed of for the day would report back to the establishment if time was still available. In the instant case the deduction had to be made, as even though, the proceedings had been adjourned in the morning itself the office bearers had failed to report back for duty and consequently the deduction of wages. This, it is pointed out, would not amount to an act of unfair labour practice. Counsel has also relied on the judgment in the case of (Blue Star Ltd. v. Blue Star Workers Union and others) 1996 (1) C. L. R. 673.