GOODLASS NEROLAC PAINTS LTD Vs. PAINTS EMPLOYEES UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal the appellant challenges the order dated August 22, 2003 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 577/2001. That writ petition was filed by the present appellant challenging the order dated January 30, 2001 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No. 68/1990. By the order that was impugned before the learned single Judge, it was declared by the Industrial Court that the appellant-company has committed unfair labour practice under Items 1(c) and 2(b) of Schedule II and Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act 1971 and has directed the appellant company to pay to the concerned members of the complainant-union, the amount as per settlement dated August 22, 1989 by deducting Rs. 2000/- for factory workers and Rs. 1750/- for staff members.

(2.) The facts that are relevant and material for deciding this appeal are that some time in the year 1987 there was a lockout declared by the appellant-company and thereafter settlement was arrived at between the appellant company and the complainant-union. It appears that at the same time one Mr. Vijay Kamble was the president of the complainant union. In pursuance of that settlement the lockout was lifted. That settlement was challenged on the ground that Mr. Vijay Kamble had no authority to represent the complainant union and that the legitimate office bearers were Mr. Limaye and Mr. Walawalkar. That contention was upheld by the competent Court. There was a settlement reached between the appellant and Shramik Utkarsha Sabha, of which Mr. Vijay Kamble was the president. After this settlement was reached the demands raised on behalf of the workers by the complainant union were referred to the Industrial Tribunal. An award has been made by the Industrial Tribunal and that award is in force from April 1, 1991. A complaint was filed by the complainant-union claiming that by entering into the settlement with Shramik Utkarsha Sabha the employer has committed unfair labour practice defined under Items l(c) and 2(b) of Schedule 2 and items 5 and 9 of Schedule 4 of the Act. In the complaint an order was also sought against the employer to pay, to such of the workmen who were not paid, the sum of Rs. 200 per month and one lump of Rs. 6000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The parties led evidence both oral and documentary and the complaint was decided by the Industrial Court by order dated January 31, 2001, the Industrial Court recorded the finding that the employer has committed unfair labour practice under the items mentioned above and therefore directed that benefits of settlement dated August 22, 1989 should be extended to all the employees irrespective of whether they have signed the settlement or not. It is to be noted here that the controversy in the complaint related only to the period January 11, 1987 to April 1, 1991.

(3.) That award was challenged before the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 577/2001. The learned single Judge has rejected that petition by his order dated August 22, 2001. Therefore, the employer came in Appeal against the order made by the Industrial Court as also the learned single Judge.