INDIAN OXYGEN EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. BOC INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Complaint is filed by Indian Oxygen Employees' Union against BOC India Limited U/s. 28 read with Item No. 1 and 5 of Sch. II and Item No. 3 and 9 of Sch. IV of the MRTU and PULP Act 1971 and alleged that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labour practices under the aforesaid Items on and after 1st January 1997. The brief facts of this case are as under: - -

(2.) THE Respondent company appeared and filed its affidavit in reply at Exh. C -4. It is inter alia contended by the Respondent that the Respondent has not committed any unfair labour practice by failing to implement any award/agreement/settlement. It is the contention of the Respondent that complainant has not disclosed any information regarding any award, settlement or agreement which the Respondent has failed to implement. None of the employees have been transferred malafide from one place to another under the guise of following management policy. The Respondent company has not interfered with the activities of the employees in organising or forming or joining or assisting any trade union not the Respondent has engaged in concerted activities as alleged. It is denied by the Respondent that the Respondent has refused to bargain collectively in good faith with the recognised union. It is contended by the affiant in his affidavit in Para 6 that the Respondent company is an all India organisation having its branches at Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Calcutta, Delhi, Faridabad, Jamshedpur, Tarapur, Taloja, Asansol, Durgapur etc. and the products produced in the various factories located throughout India are identical or similar. The machinery equipments and working environment and facilities provided to the employees are almost similar. While every other factory situated in the country makes profits, the factory situated at Ghatkopar has been losing not less than Rs. 1 crore every year. The rate of productivity in the Mumbai factory is the least compared to the productivity rendered by the employees in other factories located in the country. The salary, wages and other perquisites enjoyed by the employees in Mumbai is the highest as compared to the employees of other units of the Respondent. All the factories situated in the various parts of the country are managed by Head Office situated at Calcutta. Where every other factory is Co -operating with the increased productivity, production and better system of working, the employees employed in the Ghatkopar factory are totally opposed for up keeping and updating the productivity and production. In the result, the Ghatkopar unit is required to economise in all areas of operation to control the losses otherwise the unit shall not be in a position to sustain the burden. The machinery and equipments have been updated and has been made almost a modern unit by an investment of about 1.5 crores but none -the -less, the employees on the shop floor are interested in rendering the productivity which they were giving in the year 1967. The management of the Respondent company has taken certain active union members to the factory situated at Ahmedabad and Calcutta and shown them the working or the factory which working is identical to the working which can be performed in Ghatkopar unit. Notwithstanding such opportunity given to the employees at Ghatkopar, they refused to increase the productivity and production but are insisting on additional payment for increase in productivity only on the ground that it amount to change in the system. Improving productivity and production with the present system would lessen the work load on each employee but the union of workmen is insisting upon a notice of change to be given U/s. 9A of the I.D. Act. The modern system introduced has not cast any additional work lead on the workmen. On the other hand it given him greater safety facilities and easier working conditions.

(3.) IN view of the pleading and to overcome with the controversy, issues are framed at Exh. O -4 for determination as under: - -