HINDUSTAN LEVER MAZDOOR SABHA Vs. HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS complaint is filed by Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha against Hindustan Lever Limited, a company Incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, under items 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act. Most of the facts submitted by Both the parties are as under: -

(2.) THE Respondent filed its written statement below Exh. C -5, denying inter alia the contention of the Complainant particularly about the commission of unfair labour practice. Further the Respondent in its written statement contended that the company is not guilty of unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act 1971, from 21st March 1991 or any other date. It is the contention of the Respondent that the complainant does not disclosed any cause of action and does not show in what manner and how any of the items invoked are attracted. In paragraph 2 of its written statement the Respondent company pleaded facts which are similar to the facts narrated by the complainant in its Complaint. In short, it is the defence of the Respondent company that H.R.A. and L.T.A. granted by the Respondent company by way of settlement dt. 25th July 1985 was in peculiar circumstances. The Respondent further submitted that when the matter pertaining to revision in scale, Dearness allowance, House Rent allowance and Leave Travel Allowance was pending before the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The company tried to introduce computers, microprocessors in some of the departments, which the workmen agitated on this issues. It is the contention of the Respondent that it was within its rights to introduce computers, microprocessors to run the office more efficiently on the one hand as also to reduce the drudgery of the workmen on the other hand without causing any lose of employment to any workmen. However, the complainant union resorted to the illegal shortage of work. In order to prevent industrial unrest and to see that regular office work dose not come to a stop due to the agitation of the workmen, the company offered to settle the two demands which were the subject matter of the adjudication viz. H.R.A. and L.T.A. While settling these two demands it was abundantly made clear as will be seen from the recital of the case which was a prelude to the said settlement. The Respondent while referring as the said recital which is reproduced as under: - -

(3.) AT this stage both the parties preferred to argue out the matter without leading any oral evidence relying on the documentary evidence on record and legal position.