TARAPUR RUBBER PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. Vs. UNITED MAZDOOR UNION AND SHRI S.D. SURYAWANSHI, JUDGE, THIRD LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision application has been filed by the Applicant Company by getting aggrieved by an Order dated 14th June, 1990 below Exhs. U -2 and U -9 accordingly i.e. Application for Interim Relief and application for additing Party, which has been passed by the learned Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 233 of 1989. The present revision application which has been filed by the revision applicant by getting aggrieved by the above said Orders which has been mentioned above and the cause of action which give rise to file the original complaint and the present revision application has been narrated by the revision applicant in the present revision application in brief are as below: - -

(2.) THE few workers of the contractors had abruptly stopped work in the night shift on 25th June, 1989 and their grievance was that their employer i.e. contractor is not paying them their wages in advance on 22nd June, 1989. And due to this sudden stoppage of work, the process of manufacturing of the Applicant Company was affected and caused heavy loss of production and loss of man -hours for restarting the manufacturing activities. So accordingly, the Applicant Company brought this fact to the notice of the concerned contractors and consequent breach of agreement of contract, the respective contractors replaced fresh workers in the place of those workers who had stopped work. So the concerned workers who were removed by their employer i.e. contractors after 25th June 1989 started agitation against the Act of their employers i.e. the said contractors for the said removal of them.

(3.) WHEN subsequently on 2nd July 1989 the notice was served upon the Applicant Company through Bailiff of the Industrial Court i.e. dated 29th June, 1989, the workers whose services were terminated by the contractors have prevented a few more workers of the contractors at the gate from entering and hoisted the flag of the Union. The Union Official of the Opponent Union incited, instigated the said workers and mentioned that they were entitled for the minimum wage as per the notification in the Rubber Industry. So thus the workers were prevented from entering the factory premises of the Applicant Company and they were incited and instigated not to report for work till the Applicant Company paid them the said minimum wages. The workers were misguided by the said Official that the Applicant Company was liable to pay the same.