SERVA SHRAMIK SANGH Vs. M/S. JAI STEEL ROLLING ENGINEERING WORKS AND SHRI LOKENDRA B. JAIN, PARTNER M/S. JAI STEEL ROLLING ENGINEERING WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present complaint is filed by the Complainant Serva Shramik Sangh, against M/s. Jai Steel Rolling Engineering Works and its partner Lokendra Jain, alleging unfair labour practice under item 9 and 10 of schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. It is the case of the Complainant that the Respondent No. 1 is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing iron bars. There are about 43 workers on the muster roll and in addition to that there are 13 workers whose names are not entered in the Muster Roll. Other 12 workers are the Mathadi workers. The Respondent No. 2 is the partner of Respondent No. 1. The said workers are the members of the union for about 15 years. In order to break the unity the Respondent resorted to various unfair labour practice. On 25th November 1988 the workers were orally informed that there was no work for them as there was break down in the gear box in the Mill. They were also told that after the necessary repairs Mill would start operating since 2nd December 1988.

(2.) ON 2nd December 1988 when the workers went to resume the work, they were given lay -off. The position continued till 12th December 1988. The said lay -off is illegal. It is in violation of the standing order. They were not paid wages, during the said period. Again on 13th December 1988 when they went to report for the work, they were not allowed to resume the work by the Respondents. The standing order are applicable. Therefore, the Respondents committed breach of the service condition and thereby committed unfair labour practice.

(3.) THE Respondent has filed written statement at Exh. C.4 denying all the allegations. It is admitted that there were 43 regular workers working with the Respondent. However, it is denied that there were additional 13 workers whose names are not shown in the Muster Roll. The persons employed by the Mathadi Board have nothing to do with the employment of the Respondent. It is denied that the efforts were made by the Respondent to break the unity, of the workmen as they joined the Complainant union.