Bajaj Tempo Limited vs Subhash Simratmal Gugale And ...
2003 Latest Caselaw 647 Bom

JUDGMENT

1. By consent this matters is heard for final) disposal) at the admission stage. In the circumstances, Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. This writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Pune dated 30.9.2002 in Complaint (ULP) No. 195 of 2001. The said complaint was filed by the Respondent No. 1 alleging unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as, "The Act". for the sake of brevity). The background in which the said complaint has been filed is that the Petitioner company did not give benefits of pay increase as per settlement dated 24.3.2001 to, the Respondent No. 1 complaint and, therefore, the consequential relief of direction to the petitioner to give those benefits with difference of emoluments was also prayed. In the said complaint, the Petitioner relied Respondent No. 1 has filed two cases regarding unfair labour practice against the Petitioner company and since those case have not been withdrawn by Respondent No. 1, the Respondent No. 1 was not entitled to avail the benefits under settlement dated 24.3.2001. On the other hand, according to the No. 1 were for challenging the action of the Petitioner suspending the Respondent No. 1 for four days and that was unconnected with earlier wage settlement dated 12.4.1997 and its implementation. In the circumstances, the Respondent No. 1 contend that the non-withdrawl of the instituted by the Respondent No. 1 against the Petitioner would be of no consequence and cannot be the basis for denying the benefits under the settlement dated 24.3.2001. The Industrial Court examined the said contention and accepted the stand take on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. In the circumstances, by the impugned judgment and order, the Industrial Court partly allowed the complaint preferred by the Respondent No. 1 and held that the Petitioner had engaged in unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act by not giving benefits of settlement dated 24.3.2001 to the Respondent No. 1. Consequential order was passed directing the Petitioner to give benefits of settlement dated 24.3.2001 to the Respondent No. 1 to pay difference of emoluments to him within a period of one month. The Industrial Court, however, rejected the claim of Respondent No. 2 Union. In the present writ Petition filed by the Management, the decision of the Industrial Court allowing the complaint filed by the Respondent No. 1 and direction issued to the Petitioner is subject matter of challenge. According to the learned counsel, the Industrial Court has completely misread the relevant clauses of the settlement. On the other hand, the Counsel for Respondent No. 1 contends that there is no infirmity in the view taken by the Industrial Court in accepting the Respondent No. 1's stand that he was entitled to withdrawing the cases filed by him against the Management.

3. Having considered the rival submissions, I shall first advert to the settlement dated 12.4.1997 arrived at between the Management and the recognised union who is respondent No. 2 herein. Clause 10.0 and 10.1 of the said settlement read thus:

"10.0 POINTS OF DISCIPLINE:

The following points of general discipline in the factory are to be maintained by all the daily and monthly rated workmen and shall form part of terms of settlement.

10.1 It is agreed by the Union and Workmen that they shall observe the discipline on the shop floor. They shall not stop/refuse work for any reason whatsoever or pressurise Supervisors/Managers by using any intimidatory practices like, 'Gherao', 'Assault', 'Abuse', 'Go Slow' or any other acts of this nature. The Union shall not support workmen indulging in acts of thefts, willful damage to Company's property within or outside the premises of the Company or violence. It is agreed that if the work is stopped or 'Go slow is resorted either directly or by working at lower efficiencies for any reasons whatsoever the workmen shall be liable to proportionate penal deductions of wages and all allowances besides appropriate disciplinary actions against individual workman."

4. When this settlement was in operation, the Respondent No. 1 was reported to have indulged in willful insubordination and disobedience of the orders of he superiors and also act of misbehaviour on the premises of the establishment. That incident was stated to have occurred on 19.1.2000 for which a showcause notice came to be issued to the Respondent No. 1 on 15.2.2000 which reads thus:

   BT/PERS/82     15th FEB 2000
 

Mr. S.S. Gugale, 

T.No. 32790/6232(313)
 

SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
 

It is reported against you that on 19/1/2000, in IInd shift, you were asked by your supervisor, Mr. Bingarkar, to punch serial no. on sy. Body Shaper Cutter, but, you refused to do so. On 21/1/2000, when you were again instructed by your department head, to carry out the said work, you again flatly refused to do so and entered into arguments with him. When your department head tried to explain you, you became violent, unruly and started shouting at him loudly.

Your above act of disobeying the instructions of your superiors, behaving indecently etc., amounts to grave misconduct under the Model Standing orders applicable to your category as under:

"22 (a): "Willful insubordination or disobedience, whether or not in combination with another, of any lawful and reasonable of superior"

22 (1): "commission of any act subversive to discipline or good behaviour on the premises of the establishment" you are hereby called upon to explain in writing within 48 hours from the receipt of this notice as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you.

If you do not submit your written explanation within the above stipulated time, it will be presumed that you have no explanation to offer and you will be liable for appropriate disciplinary action.

For BAJAJ TEMPO LIMITED

SR. GENERAL MANAGER (C.P.)

CC:P. file

Dept. Head

Once again the Respondent No. 1 was found to have indulged in indiscipline on the premises of the establishment. That incident happened on 17.6.2000 for which another showcause notice came to be issued on 21.7.2000 which reads thus:

  "BT/PERS/213      21 JUL 2000
 

Mr. S.S. Gugale, 

T.No. 32790/6232(313)
 

SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
 

It is reported against you as under:

On 17-6-2000, at about 0915 hrs... Mr. P.G. Bhadake, T.No. 104460 came to your department i.e., Tool Crib Department, Plant-2 alongwith Consumable Material Requisition Voucher (C.M.R.V.) No. 1897) dated 17.6.2000 duly signed by the authorities and approached Mr. Panchal, T.No. 33775 for collecting tools. While the said CMRV was being handed over to Mr. Panchal, you, without any reason, intervened and snatched off the C.M.R.V. from Mr. Bhadake. You told Mr. Bhadke that this not your section's work and threw away the said CMRV at him. Mr. Bhadke reported this incident to his superior Mr. D. D. Nandagirikar. Engineer. when you were asked by Mr. Nandagirikar as to was thrown away, you became furious and started shouting at Mr. Nandagirikar say" Though Mr. Nandagirikar tried to explain you, you did not listen to him at all and continued your shouting as mentioned above.

The aforesaid act on your part amounts to serious misconduct under the Model Standing Order applicable to your category as under:

"22(k): "drunkness, riotous, disorderly or indecent behaviour on the premises of the establishment."

22(1): "commission of any act subversive to discipline or good behaviour on the premises of the establishment"

You are hereby called upon to explain in writing within 48 hours from the receipt of this notice as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you. If you do not submit your written explanation within the above stipulated time, it will be presumed that you have no explanation to offer and you will be liable for appropriate disciplinary action.

For BAJAJ TEMPO LIMITED

SR. GENERAL MANAGER (C.P.)

CC:P. file

Dept. Head

5. For the aforesaid misconduct of the Respondent No. 1, enquiry was held and eventually the Management suspended the Respondent No. 1 for a period of four days. That action of the Management was challenged by the Respondent No. 1 by filing two separate complaints before the Industrial Court alleging unfair labour practices committed by the Management in respect of the aforesaid enquiry and instances referred to in the showcause notices. It is not in dispute that the said two complaints were pending before the appropriate Court when the present complaint came to be filed by the Respondent No. 1 complaining of unfair labour practice in not giving benefit of the Settlement dated 24.3.2001. It is now apposite to adverted to the relevant Clause 1.3 of the settlement dated 24.3.2001 which reads thus:

"1.3 It is agreed by and between the parties that the benefits of this settlement would not be available to the workmen, who have filed various cases regarding unfair labour practices connected with wage settlements and their implementation, unless they withdraw such cases."

6. According to the Petitioner Management, the said two complaints were connected with the wage settlement dated 12.4.197 and its implementation and since the Respondent No. 1 failed to withdraw the said complaints, he was not entitled for the benefits of settlement dated 24.3.2001 having regard to the plain reading of Clause 1.3 referred to above.

7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 contends that the two complaints filed by the Respondent No. 1 were in respect of the action taken by the Petitioner Management against the Respondent No. 1 under Model Standing Orders and not in relation to the said settlement dated 12.4.1997.

8. In this background, the first question that arise for consideration is whether the action taken against the Respondent No. 1 by the Management can be given restricted meaning of only being governed by the provisions of the Model Standing Orders and not ascribable to the Settlement dated 12.4.1997? To my mind, though the show cause notices advert to misconduct under the Model Standing Orders applicable to the Respondent No. 1, that does not mean that the action was not at all referable to the Settlement, being points of discipline under Clause 10.0 and 10.1 of the Settlement dated 12.4.1997 (wage settlement). As has been noted, Clause 10.0 and 10.1 of settlement dated 12.4.1997 explicitly deal with points of discipline and the behaviour and conduct of the employees on the premises of the establishment. It also clearly provides that if it is found that the employee has breached any of the conditions stated therein, it will be open to the Management to take appropriate disciplinary action against individual workman and the employee shall be also liable to appropriate penal deduction of wages. I find substance in the arguments of the Petitioner that the reference to Model Standing Orders in the showcause notices was in the context that the procedure for taking action against workman is provided in the Model Standing Orders. In substance, the action against Respondent No. 1 taken by the Management was also for infraction of Clause 10.0 and 10.1 of Settlement dated 12.4.1997 and the procedure for that action was governed by the provisions of the Model Standing Orders. Understood thus, earlier action against Respondent No. 1 was also connected with and relating to the implementation of the wage settlement dated 12.4.1997. If that is so, by virtue of Clause 1.3 of Settlement dated 24.3.2001, Respondent No. 1 became disentitled for the benefits of that settlement having failed to withdraw the two cases instituted by him against the Management alleging unfair labour practices connected with wage settlement and its implementation. It is not in dispute that while the present complaint was pending, the two complaints filed by the Respondent No. 1 have been eventually dismissed on merits. The fact remains that when the Respondent No. 1 made grievance before the Industrial Court regarding non-implementation of settlement dated 24.3.2001 by filing the present complaint, admittedly, on that date the two complaints filed by the Respondent No. 1 against the Management regarding unfair labour practice which were, as observed earlier, connected with wage settlement dated 12.4.1997 and its implementation were pending. Since those complaints were not withdrawn, there was no occasion for the Respondent No. 1 to claim benefits under the settlement dated 24.3.2001 having regard to the express provision in the shape of Clause 1.3. To my mind, therefore, the Industrial Court has completely misdirected itself in concluding that the two complaints filed by the Respondent No. 1 cannot be said to be connected with wage settlement and their implementation. As the finding has been reversed for the reasons indicated above, it necessarily follow that there would be no question of the Petitioner Management having indulged in unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. Accordingly, this Petition succeeds. The impugned order is set aside to the extent it has accepted the claim of the Respondent No. 1. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs".

9. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 prays that the Petitioner be directed not to give effect to this order for a period of four weeks from today to enable the Respondent No. 1 to take up the matter in appeal, if so advised. In the circumstances, the Petitioner not to give effect to this order for a period of four weeks from today.

10. Parties to act a true copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar.