28-03-2012, 03:56 PM
Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha vs Bombay Dyeing And Mfg.
Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha vs Bombay Dyeing And Mfg.docx (Size: 28.39 KB / Downloads: 28)
1. In this writ petition petitioner Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha, a trade union, has challenged the order passed by the Industrial Court, Bombay dated January 7, 1982 refusing to grant ad interim relief pending the hearing and final disposal of the original complaint.
2. The petitioner union filed a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the Act, against the respondents alleging that they have committed unfair labour practices enumerated in the complaint. The first unfair labour practice alleged is that the petitioner union which is representing majority of the workmen in the head office of the first respondent company had started negotiations with the respondents on the charter of demands. These negotiations went on for some time and while the union was endeavouring to bring about the settlement, the respondent company adopted the policy which ultimately resulted in refusal to negotiate in a bona fide manner with the union. In view of this, the complainant union gave a fresh notice of strike dated August 31, 1981. Even in spite of this notice the respondent did not attempt to negotiate settlement with the complainant union and, therefore, the employees were constrained to go on strike on September 15, 1981 and the same is continuing. Even during this period of strike the complainant union made efforts by meeting the president Shri H.R. Thanawala of the respondent company to bring about conciliation. In the meeting held on September 7, 1981 certain terms were offered by the said Shri Thanawala, The said terms were confirmed by the complainant union vide their letter dated September 7, 1981, but Shri Thanawala failed to confirm it as agreed. Smt. Bhattacharjee, Deputy Labour Commissioner of Labour also made certain suggestions to the respondent company for coming to amicable settlement, but the representatives of the respondents declined to accept the said reasonable offer and refused to settle the dispute. The union offered to refer the whole dispute to the arbitration of Shri Guzdar, one of the directors of the respondent company, but that was also declined. It is further alleged by the complainant Union in the complaint that the respondents have not only failed or refused to bargain collectively but the said refusal is also mala fide and therefore this refusal amounts to unfair labour practice within the meaning of item 5 of schedule II of the Act.
3. The second unfair labour practice alleged is that the company has abolished the regular structure of work by giving work to outside contractors or agents during the period of strike. It is alleged in the complaint that clerical work has been abolished since the beginning of the strike and the said work is being carried out by the executive and security staff under compulsion. It is then alleged that whatever work remained, after it is done by the executive and security staff, is being got done through the contractors referred to in the schedule. It is also alleged in the complaint that the respondents have engaged employees of the Spring Mill and are getting it done through them. According to the complainant union this is an unfair labour practice within the meaning of item 2 and 8 of schedule IV of the Act.
4. Various allegations made in the complaint are denied by the respondents. According to them they have been negotiating with the union with a view to settle the outstanding demands of the employees, but the negotiations have failed because of the complainant union's attitude and as they wanted the respondent company to sign on a dotted line and accept the settlement on their own terms. According to the respondent though in the meeting held on September 7, 1981 certain offer was made, it was not one which is referred to by the complainant union in their letter of the same date. In this meeting Shri Guzdar was present. According to the respondents whatever transpired in that meeting has been put on record by Shri Thanawala in his letter dated September 8, 1981 addressed to the complainant union and the version given by the complainant union in their letter dated September 7, 1981 is wholly untrue and incorrect. The respondent denied that any suggestion was made by Smt. Bhattacharjee, Deputy Labour Commissioner as alleged. It is the case of the respondents that the negotiations failed because of the attitude of the complainant union and not because of the refusal of the respondents to collectively bargain with the complainant union. According to them there is no question of the respondents agreeing to the arbitration of Shri Guzdar as Shri Guzdar had already taken part in the negotiations and the result was not likely to be otherwise, even if he was appointed as arbitrator. The respondents contended that the strike notice dated August 31, 1981 is illegal. It is also their case that the strike resorted to is also illegal. According to the respondents as the complainant union is not a recognised union, the question of committing an unfair labour practice by refusing to bargain collectively with the recognised union within the meaning of item 5 of schedule II did not arise. The respondents have denied the allegation that they have abolished regular nature of work with a view to either break the strike or reduce the union membership. According to them they are getting the work done through their executive officers and the employees who are not on strike and in law they are entitled to do so. They also denied that they have committed any unfair labour practice within the meaning of items 2 or 8 of schedule IV of the Act. The respondents denied that they have introduced Spring Mill staff or that they are getting the normal work done by them, Spring Mill employees.