ANJANI KUMAR CO LTD Vs. MANUBAI KASHINATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS the question of law as to the interpretation of Section 40a of the Bombay Industrial relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is involved in these writ petitions, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE first respondent in Writ Petition No. 2733 of 1982 was in the employment of the petitioner as a Reporter and was working in the Packing Department. She was suspended pending enquiry and was served with the charge-sheet on September 22, 1981. She, therefore, filed Complaint (U. L. P.) No. 648 of 1981 in the Industrial Court at Bombay alleging unfair labour practice covered by item No. 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the mrtu and PULP Act') against the petitioner. Likewise, the first respondent in Writ Petition No. 2734 of 1982 who was also working as a Reporter with the petitioner filed a Complaint (U. L. P.)No. 649 of 1981 against the petitioner for being suspended pending enquiry and charge-sheeted on September 22, 1981 for the same declaration that the petitioner committed unfair labour practice covered by item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act. The allegations of both the workmen against the petitioner were that by suspending them, the petitioner violated the terms of service conditions by not paying subsistence allowance and thus by not implementing the standing orders applicable to them, unfair labour practice covered by item 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act was committed by the petitioner. The complaints were finally disposed of by a common judgment by the learned Member of the Industrial Court on October 20, 1982 holding that there was amendment to the Model Standing Order on October 16, 1981 by the government of Maharashtra which was applicable to the workmen of the petitioner which was not implemented by the petitioner at the time of suspension of the two first respondents in both the petitions and, therefore, the petitioner committed unfair labour practice covered by item 9 of schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act. The petitioner challenged the said order of the industrial Court in the first two writ petitions.

(3.) SO long as Writ Petition No. 1862 of 1983 is concerned, the complaint of unfair labour practice was filed by the first respondent-union (Maharashtra General Kamgar Union), being complaint (U. L. P.) No. 504 of 1982, on behalf of 14 workmen represented by them who were similarly suspended as was done in the case of the other two workmen in Writ Petition Nos. 2733 of 1982 and 2734 of 1982. The first respondent-union here had in addition to item 9 of schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act also alleged commission of unfair labour practices covered by item 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Schedule II and 1, 5 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and pulp Act. In the said complaint an application for interim relief was made and the learned member of the Industrial Court by his order dated July 26, 1983 granted the said interim relief calling upon the petitioner to pay wages/subsistence allowance to the 14 employees suspended pending enquiries with effect from May 26, 1982 almost on the same analogy as was done by the industrial Court in Writ Petition Nos. 2733 of 1982 and 2734 of 1982. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the Industrial Court, the petitioner filed this particular writ petition.