BIDDLE SAWYER LTD Vs. CHEMICAL EMPLOYEES UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the Company seeks to challenge Judgment and Order passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 1017 of 1994. By the impugned order, the above complaint filed by the Union particularly came to be allowed. By the impugned order, the Industrial Court declared that the Company had engaged i in unfair labour practices under Item 5 of Schedule 11 of the Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as 'the said Act, 1971')

(2.) MR. Koehar the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Company contended that the Industrial Court erred in the present matter, in coming to the conclusion that the Company was guilty of unfair labour practice. Mr. Kochar invited my attention to the correspondence and submitted that in view of the contents of the letters addressed by the President of the Union and in view of the allegations made therein, it was impossible for the Company to enter into even negotiations on Charter of Demands submitted by the Union to the Company. Mr. Koehar contended that the letters indicate that the Officers as well as the Advocates have been fourteen by the Union, as evidenced by the said letters and in the circumstances, the Industrial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the Company was guilty of unfair labour practice under 30 Item 5 of Schedule 11 to the said Act, 1971.

(3.) MR. Cama, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union, on the other hand, contended that in the present matter, the Union repeatedly called upon the Company to negotiate their Charter of Demands submitted by the Union. Mr. Cama further contended that the correspondence on which reliance is placed by Shri Koehar, learned counsel for the Company, was go the outcome of frustration because the Union realised that the Company was adopting delaying tactics and the Company was trying to take the matter into adjudication because it was Mlyaware of the fact that adjudication would take several years. Mr. Cama further contended that in the above circumstances, the Industrial Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the Company was guilty of unfair labour practice under item 5 of Sch. 11 to the said Act, 1971.