CIPLA LTD Vs. CIPLA EMPLOYEES UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Original Petitioners (the Respondents) before us have filed the present Civil Application praying to speak to Minutes of Order dated July 19, 1999 passed by us. Hereinafter the parties would be referred to as "the Union" and "the Company" (the original petitioners and the respondents respectively ).

(2.) WE have again heard both the learned Counsel for some time. In spite of our detailed order it appears that the Company has not accepted the letter and spirit of our order and has deliberately tried to misunderstand it. Our attention is drawn to a letter dated July 28, 1999 addressed by the Company to one of the Machine Operators (Original Petitioner No. 2 ). By the said letter, though he was admittedly a Machine Operator, he was allotted the work of cleaning of acid shed racks, boxes and carbouys and its area and Acid Shed. In the said letter it is alleged that he refused to do that work and remained idle for the entire day. It appears that even thereafter the Company kept on insisting upon him to do that work only and it displayed warning orders on the notice board. It is clear from the record that Shri Pingle was a Machine Operator and his main duty and work is that of a Machine Operator. We have in our order made it abundantly clear that a Machine Operator should clean the "cubic area" of the machines, that is, the surrounding place of the machine where the Machine Operator works. To clean the surrounding area of the machine is not his principal or main duty but it is only an incidental or ancillary work and, therefore, according to us it was also the work required to be done by the Machine Operator himself. Even the learned Counsel Shri Cooper for the Company had unequivocally and categorically made a statement which we have recorded in our order that a Machine Operator will be required to do the aforesaid incidental work of cleaning the cubic area that is the surrounding place of the machine only and nothing else. We have no manner of doubt that the management of the Company must have read the order and must also have understood the same. It appears that some of the Officers are trying to make the issue of work as a hollow prestige issue and they appear to suffer from an ego problem and they appear to be bent upon to break the spirit and back of the employees at any cost. Had it not been so we would not have been called upon to waste our time once again on the very same issue. It is very unfortunate that the Company should have transferred a Machine Operator to some other department or place and to have called upon him to do the work of "cleaning of acid shed racks, boxes and carbouys and its area in Acid Shed" which was definitely not his duty or his work as a Machine Operator. This clearly reflects a vindictive and victimising attitude on the part of the Company's Officers. There is no dispute of any nature that the Machine Operators are ready and willing to do the cleaning work of cubic area during the pendency of the complaint. It appears that the Company has not been able to imbibe the spirit of mutual co-operation as reflected in our Order. We do not find anything which is vague or which requires any clarification. The Union appears to have been constrained to approach us once again particularly because the Company has transferred or shunted off some of the active employees enmasse requiring them to do only the cleaning work without assigning them the principal or main duty of their respective posts or designations. It appears that the Officers of the Company have mala fide shifted the employees from their usual main work to some other places requiring them to do only the work of cleaning and sweeping. This was not the order which we had passed.

(3.) WHILE recording the statement of Shri Cooper, the learned Counsel appearing for the Company we had asked him for more than once, may be, half a dozen times that a Machine Operator would not be required to clean and sweep the area or floor except the surrounding area of his machine and Shri Cooper had repeatedly told us that was correct. When he made this statement he did so after obtaining instructions from the officers who were personally present in the Court it appears that someone from amongst them is trying to play mischief to continue to brew the problem in the Company. The Company is trying to misread and misconstrue the order by shifting the usual Machine Operators and other workers from their usual and main duty requiring them to do the only incidental part of work of cleaning and sweeping.