HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD Vs. HINDUSTAN LEVER EMPLOYEES UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both the learned Counsel; Shri Rele for the Petitioner and Shri Singhvi for the first respondent.

(2.) THIS is a petition by the employer M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. challenging the order dated January 5, 1995 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai allowing complaint (ULP) No. 855 of 1989. The complaint alleged unfair labour practice under item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short "1971 Act"), Item 9 reads as under: "failure to implement award, settlement or agreement. " The Industrial Court has recorded a finding that the employer had effected a change in the conditions of service applicable to the workmen and though the conditions of service related to items 1, 10 and 11 of the Fourth Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, no notice of change as required by Section 9-A of the I. D. Act was given. The Industrial Court came to the conclusion that after the lock-out was lifted on June 22, 1989, certain departments were closed down which had rendered several workmen surplus; nearly 1000 workmen had voluntarily retired as a result of their being rendered surplus; 500 workmen were rendered idle and some skilled workmen were required to do un-skilled job as a result of their redeployment after the lock-out was lifted. It was further held that the petitioner had set up new units at Khamgaon where 300 new workmen were employed, at Yeotmal with 130 new workmen, at Sumarpur with 160 new workmen and at Orai where 250 new workmen were employed. The conditions of service of the newly employed workmen were much lower than of those who are surplus and idle at Mumbai at the petitioner's Seweree factory where there was a lock-out.

(3.) FEW facts relevant for appreciating the contentions raised before me may be stated as under: