SHRAMIK MAHASANGH Vs. CIPLA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directed against an interim order of the Industrial Court in a complaint of Unfair Labour Practices under the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, by which an application for the grant of interim relief was rejected.

(2.) On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of the Respondents that in addition to the amount of Rs.320/- which has been paid at Vikhroli on account of transport allowance, the management agreed to pay an additional amount of Rs.750/- per month to the workers towards a re-location allowance as a result of the transfer from Vikhroli to Patalganga. It is has been submitted that on 28th January 2008, a notice was put up and thereafter, before the shift allocation took effect, discussions took place with the Union. There was, therefore, no breach of the consent order. Moreover, it has been submitted that necessary steps have been taken by the management to provide a bus from the factory to railway station so as to enable the workers to catch the last train which departs from Panvel and as a matter of fact, the workers are released well in advance even before the actual timing of the shift is to come to an end. It has been urged that while individual cases of hardship can be considered by the management, the workers are not employed on the basis of their place of residence. The settlement at Vikhroli contemplated that the management was entitled to change even the timings of the workers and both the standing orders and the orders of appointments empower the management to transfer the workmen from one establishment to the other. Hence, it is submitted that interference of this Court is not warranted particularly in this matter under Articles 226 and 227.

(3.) In considering the rival submissions, it would at the outset be necessary to recapitulate some of the salient aspects. On 7th December 2006, 67 employees were transferred from Vikhroli to Patalganga. Clause 6 of the consent terms arrived at before this Court envisages that for a period of one year these workers would be allotted work in the general shift commencing from 8.30 a.m. and in the night shift from 11.00 p.m. However, upon the lapse of a period of one year, the management was specifically at liberty to consider the allocation of workers to any other shift. The management however, was required to discuss the issue in advance with the Union. A relocation allowance of Rs.750/- was provided to the workers as and by way of transport allowance in connection with the transfers from Vikhroli to Patalganga. The earlier complaint of Unfair Labour Practices was disposed of in view of the settlement. The Industrial Court adverted to all these facets and came to the conclusion that prima-facie, since the employer was paying a transport allowance, it was for the workers to make necessary arrangements to reach the scheduled time of the commencement of the shift. Moreover, it was noted that a Charter of demands was submitted by the Union and negotiations had already been commenced before the Labour Commissioner. In these circumstances, the Industrial Court declined to grant interim relief.