P D SIDDHAYE Vs. G N PATWARDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. By consent Rule heard forthwith. 2the order of the Industrial Court, Pune, below Exhibit U- 16 and UA-10 dated 30th April, 1997 is the subject matter of this petition. The petition arises from a complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 as the General Secretary of the Atlas Copco Employees Federation. Atlas Copco India Limited, the respondent No. 2 herein was respondent No. 1 in the complaint and the present petitioner is the respondent No. 2 in the complaint. The substance of the complaint filed by the respondent is that though the complainant was duly elected General Secretary of the Atlas Copco Employees Union the Company refused to negotiate and act upon the Charter of Demand served by the Union on the respondent No. 2 Company. It was, therefore, alleged that the respondent No. 2 had committed an act of unfair labour practice falling under Item 5 of Schedule II and Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act, 1971. An application for interim relief was also moved to direct the Company to negotiate with the Union through the respondent No. 1 herein. The Industrial Court by order dated 28th November, 1996 was pleased to direct the company to commence negotiations and allowed the application in terms of prayer (a) of paragraph 3 of the application dated 28th November, 1996.

(2.) THE petitioner herein thereafter filed his reply and pleaded that he was the duly elected President of the Union and that the respondent No. 1 was not even a member of the Union. The Annual General Body Meeting of the Atlas Copco Employees Federation for the year 1993 was held on 8th January, 1993 and thereafter it is alleged that in the Annual General Meetings elections have been conducted from the year 1994 onwards and the last annual general meeting was held on 30th May, 1995 including elections to posts of office bearers. It was contended that there was a dispute pertaining to the elections held in Pune on 22nd July, 1993. The Industrial Court, Pune, held against the respondent No. 1 and in respect thereto a petition is pending before this Court. It was also pointed out that the registered office of the Union was transferred from Mumbai to Pune. In a complaint lodged by the petitioner the act of the Registrar of Trade Unions and/or his nominee has been set aside and the respondent No. 1 has challenged the same by way of a writ petition and the same is pending. In paragraph 14 of the complaint it is contended that the settlement dated 6th June, 1994 is still subsisting and will expire on 31st December, 1996 and that new wage revision/settlement obviously can be signed from the period 1st January, 1997 onwards. It is pointed out that the petitioner as President of the Union has terminated the settlement by notice dated 1st November, 1996. Various other allegations have been made against the respondent No. 1 and rival members who are claiming to be the duly elected office bearers of the Union.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the complaint the respondent No. 2 Company has entered into a settlement with the Union represented by office bearers of which the respondent No. 1 is the General Secretary. There are altogether 425 employees working with the company out of which 400 have accepted the settlement.