TATA CONSULTING ENGINEERS Vs. A C DOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order of the Industrial Court, Mumbai, dated 24th August, 1995, made in Complaint U. L. P. No. 76 of 1986, a proceedings under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ).

(2.) THE petitioner is a company which is engaged in the business of providing engineering services. Prior to 1984, there was only one union functioning in the company i. e. , Tata Consulting Employees Union. It seems that the said union was functioning from 1972 and was recognised as the only bargainable union of the employees in the workmen category. The respondent No. 2 union came on the scene in 1984. The respondent No. 2 represents mainly draughtsmen and clerks working in the company. On 27th January, 1986 respondent No. 2 filed Complaint U. L. P. No. 76 of 1986, inter alia, alleging that the company was engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 2 (a) and 2 (b) of Schedule II and Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act. It was alleged by respondent No. 2 that there are two unions operating in the field namely (i) respondent No. 2 union and (ii) Tata Consulting Employees Union. It was further alleged that neither of the unions is recognised under the Act. Hence, both of them enjoyed equal status and were accordingly entitled to equal rights, facilities and treatment at least till such time one of them is duly recognised in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In the complaint, respondent No. 2 has given examples of the attitude of the management in showing special favours and partiality to the rival union. It was pointed out that after the formation of respondent No. 2 union, number of letters were addressed to the management in respect of the grievances of those employees who were their members. But the management has not cared to reply to those letters. It was also pointed out that the other union is permitted to affix notices on the notice board of the establishment and hold meetings in the company premises, whereas respondent No. 2 is denied such facility to its great disadvantage. It was also submitted that while attending the matters pertaining to their members before the authorities and the forums, the General Secretary of respondent No. 2 union used to inform the head of the department and used to make entry in the register. The company, however, acted in a discriminatory manner against the representatives of respondent No. 2 and deductions were unauthorisedly made from their wages for the absence when the representatives had attended cases of their members before the authorities or the forums after due notice to the head of the department. It was submitted that by these acts of the management, respondent No. 2 is experiencing great difficulty in carrying out their organisational work on account of partisan attitude adopted by the management. Thus the management of the company is guilty of showing partiality and favouritism to the rival union attempting to organise their employees, although the said union is not recognised under the Act. A direction was therefore, sought against the company not to indulge in any act of supporting the Tata Consulting Employees Union. In particular, a direction was also sought against the company to permit the office bearers of the union to attend proceeding before various authorities and to refund the wages deducted from the salary of the representatives of respondent No. 2 on account of their absence when they attended the matters of their members before the authorities or forums. The complaint came to be tried and allowed by the Industrial Courts order which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(3.) A reading of the impugned order of the Industrial Court shows that the Industrial Court has accepted the evidence of respondent No. 2 that their representatives used to attend the proceedings before the authority or the forum after informing the head of the department and therefore the Industrial Court held that the deduction of wages was not justified. The Industrial Court also found that respondent No. 2 union was not permitted to display the notice on the notice board of the company and to hold meetings in the companys premises and that only the office bearers of respondent No. 2 were not permitted to see the officers in connection with their grievances. Similarly, the company had not held any talks with the union in respect of their various problems including their charter of demands. In view of these findings, the Industrial Court came to the conclusion that the company has committed unfair labour practice under Items 2 (a) and 2 (b) of Schedule II and Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act.