GENERAL LABOUR UNION Vs. I T C LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an order of the Industrial Court, Bombay, dated 26th November,1991 made in Complaint (ULP) No.538 of 1989 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) THE Petitioner is a registered Trade Union which claims to represent some of the ex-workman of the First Respondent Industrial Establishment. The Second Respondent is another Trade Union which claims to represent the overwhelming majority of such workmen. Respondents 3 to 6 are office bearers of the Second Respondent Union and the Seventh Respondent is an Industrial Court.

(3.) CURIOUSLY , in the complaint filed before the Industrial Court nothing was mentioned as to who were the workmen on whose behalf the complaint was moved. The complaint is blissfully vague with regard to the number or identity of the workmen who claimed to be aggrieved by the action of implementation of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme by the First Respondent. However, Mrs.Mhatre, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner Union, submitted that the complaint had been moved on behalf of 122 workmen who were part of 252 workmen who had accepted the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and also disbursement of the first instalment of the compensation. She also submitted that there were other 20 workmen who were not parties to the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and, therefore, the terms of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme could not be enforced against them. The Industrial Court by the impugned order dismissed the complaint holding that all the workmen on whose behalf the complaint was agitated were members of the Second Respondent Union on the date of the settlement (19.4.1989) and as such they were bound by the terms thereof. Though the order of the Industrial Court seems to suggest that the Petitioner Union has no 'locus standi' to move the complaint, perhaps what was meant was that the workmen could not be heard to contend contrary to the Settlement, since they were bound by the terms of the settlement. Though Mrs.Mhatre tried to agitate the rights of the 20 workmen who had initially declined to accept the terms of Voluntary Retirement Scheme, she was unable to show how the Petitioner Union was aggrieved by the said action as these workmen were not the workmen on whose behalf the complaint, or for that matter even the present writ petition, has been agitated. In fact, it has been put on record in the affidavit in reply filed by Kurush Noshir Grant on behalf of the First Respondent (paragraph 9) that two out of the remaining 22 workmen had filed Complaint (ULP) No.455 of 1989 praying that the Company be directed to provide them normal work and wages and certain facilities and that the complaints of all but one were withdrawn. In any case, I am not concerned with the rights of those workmen in the present writ petition.