RUBY COACH BUILDERS LTD Vs. P S GHOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at Mumbai, which is aggrieved by the Judgement and order dated 29-9-1995 rendered by the Learned Member of the Industrial Court at Mumbai thereby allowing Complaint(ULP)No.692/1994. The Industrial Court held that the petitioner company was guilty of engaging in acts of unfair labour practice under item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') and consequently directed the petitioner company to (a) pay wages for the month of June 1993 (b) to pay wages for 14 days of suspension of operation commenced from 13-6-1993 and continued till 13-7-1993 and (c) to pay bonus for the accounting year 1992-93. While admitting this petition interim-relief in terms of prayer clause (b) was granted as per the order dated 21-12-1995 and consequently the impugned order remains stayed.

(2.) The petitioner has a factory building coaches of heavy vehicles and was employing around 500 workmen. It had signed settlements from time to time with the representative of its workmen and the last settlement signed in 1990 was to expire at the end of 1993. The said settlement was signed with the elected representative of the workers on 16-8-1990 and as per the same it was agreed by the company to pay bonus at the rate of 20% for each financial year covered by the said settlement. It appears that sometimes in May-June 1993 the industrial relations in the factory were disturbed and respondent no. 1 union forced its entry and claimed majority support. However, the internal union which is impleaded as respondent no.3 in this petition approached the Industrial Court with an application for recognition and the said application was registered as Application (MRTU)No. 35/1991. The said application was allowed by the Industrial Court vide its Judgement and order dated 1-12-1993 and consequently the certificate of recognition was granted to respondent no.3 union as the recognised union under the Act.

(3.) As before the Industrial Court, the learned counsel for the company reiterated the same grounds in support of this petition. As per him when a settlement was signed with the recognised union and the issues raised in the complaint were covered by the said settlement, the terms of settlement would be extended only to those workmen who had complied with the requirements of clause 18 therein namely of furnishing of an undertaking. It was further contended that in the list of 147 workmen who were not allegedly paid wages/bonus, there were hardly any, who were employees of the petitioner company and most of them were the contract labours engaged to do the work. It was also pointed out that the list of 147 workmen at Exh. U-12 was submitted at the fag end of the trial of the complaint and, therefore, the company could not verify the names of these 147 workmen. However, it submitted the list of 32 out of 147 workmen who were admittedly on the rolls of the company at the relevant time. It was also submitted that the employees had formed a cooperative credit society and most of them were the members of the same society. The said society had approached the Cooperative Court and obtained an injunction against the company on 6-10-1994 in Case No. CIV/320/1994. As per the said order the company was restrained from disbursing wages to the 147 members/workmen and, therefore, the company could not disburse the wages. Mr. Chitale also submitted that the Industrial Court committed a manifest error by holding that the settlement which was signed in 1994 was not implemented and in breach of the said settlement the members of the Complainant union were not given wages for the month of June 1993 and bonus etc. Insupport of his challenge to the impugned Judgement, Mr. Chitale has relied upon the following decisions.