Shrigonda Sahakari Sakhar ... vs Shrigonda Taluka Sakhar Kamgar ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6254 Bom

                                         1




                                                                          
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY   
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                  
                            WRIT PETITION NO.3140 OF 2003

    Shrigonda Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
    Ltd., Shrigonda Factory,




                                                 
    Taluka Shrigonda, Dist.Ahmednagar,
    Through its Managing Director,
    Shri Vinayak Sahebrao Bhoite,
    Age-55 years, Occu-Service,




                                        
    R/o Shrigonda Factory,
    Taluka Shrigonda, Dist.Ahmednagar                  -- PETITIONER 

    VERSUS
                              
    Shrigonda Taluka Sakhar Kamgar Union,
                             
    "Shramik" Tilak Road, Ahmednagar,
    Through its General Secretary                      -- RESPONDENT

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2199 OF 2004

Shrigonda Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana

Ltd., Shrigonda Factory, Taluka Shrigonda, Dist.Ahmednagar, Through its Managing Director, Shri Vinayak Sahebrao Bhoite,

Age-55 years, Occu-Service, R/o Shrigonda Factory, Taluka Shrigonda, Dist.Ahmednagar -- PETITIONER

VERSUS

1. Dadasaheb Babasaheb Barguje, Age-50 years,

2. Dnyandeo Genuji Girankar, Age-48 years,

3. Balwant Nivrutti Chor, Age-52 years,

khs/OCT.2016/3140-d

4. Appasaheb Baburao Shende, Age-54 years,

5. Jalindar Appasaheb Dhaygude, Age-47 years,

6. Gajanan Namdeo Kothimbire,

Age-55 years,

7. Chandrakant Gangadhar Gaikwad, Age-46 years,

8. Raghunath Jyotiba Nalawade, Age-51 years,

9. Rajaram Pandurang Kale, Age-53 years,

10. Maruti Dagadu Khamkar, Age-45 years,

11. Ramchandra Dhondiba Sarode,

Age-52 years,

12. Baban Dasharath Mhaske, Age-47 years,

13. Shivaji Parvatrao Zende,

Age-53 years,

14. Pandharinath Kisanrao Mohite, Age-46 years,

15. Balasaheb Vitthal Unde, Age-44 years,

16. Gena Nagu Mande, Age-50 years,

17. Narayan Dattu Shitole, Age-46 years,

All Occu-Service,

khs/OCT.2016/3140-d

R/o Shrigonda Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Shrigonda Factory,

Tal.Shrigonda, Dist.Ahmednagar -- RESPONDENTS

Mr.V.D.Hon, Sr.Counsel h/f Mr.A.V.Hon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.S.Shelke, Advocate for the respondent in WP No.3140/2003. Mr.P.L.Shahane, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to17 in WP

No.2199/2004.

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

DATE : 21/10/2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner/Sugar Factory is aggrieved by the judgment and

order dated 16/10/2002 delivered by the Industrial Court,

Ahmednagar by which Complaint (ULP) Nos.171/1990 and 35/1990

have been allowed.

2. The second petition arises from the same impugned judgments

filed by a small group of 17 employees, who are said to be already

covered by the judgment of the Industrial Court in the Complaint

filed by the respondent/Union herein. The second petition is not on

board and has been taken on board by the consent of the parties

considering that the first petition, which is being heard today, would

cover all the employees of the petitioner/sugar factory represented by

the respondent/approved union.

khs/OCT.2016/3140-d

3. Mr.Hon has strenuously criticized the impugned judgment by

placing reliance upon his pleadings in the memo of the petition and

the grounds raised below paragraph Nos.8(i) to (xii).

4. I find that this Court had heard the learned Advocates for the

respective sides and has passed a speaking order dated 16/06/2004

by which the petition was admitted only in the light of the contention

that Section 21 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 would render the

complaint untenable in law. Interim relief has been specifically

refused to the petitioner. The order of this Court dated 16/06/2004

reads as under :-

"It is admitted that the respondent No.1 is registered as

representative union and the employees of the petitioner are covered by the said representation. On the face of the provisions of Section 21 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions

and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Complaint (ULP) No.35 of 1990 was not tenable.

2. Hence, Rule.

3. Rule is expedited.

4. Shri A.S.Shelke, learned Advocate, waives service for the respondent no.1 Union.

5. Interim relief refused."

5. About 14 years have passed by from the date of the impugned

khs/OCT.2016/3140-d

judgment of the Industrial Court. It is informed that all these

employees involved in these two petitions have attained the age of

superannuation and have retired from service.

6. Section 21 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 reads as under :-

"21. Right to appear or act in proceedings relating to

certain unfair labour practices :

No employee in an undertaking to which the provisions of the Central Act for the time being apply, shall be allowed to appear or act or allowed to be represented in any proceedings

relating to unfair labour practices specified in items 2 and 6 of Schedule IV of this Act except through the recognized union: Provided that, where there is no recognized union to appear, the

employee may himself appear or act in any proceeding relating

to any such unfair labour practices.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Bombay Act, no employee in any industry to which the provisions of the

Bombay Act, for the time being apply, shall be allowed to appear or act or allowed to be represented in any proceeding relating to unfair labour practices specified in Items 2 and 6 of

Schedule IV of this Act except through the representative of employees entitled to appear under section 30 of the Bombay Act."

7. It is trite law that a recognized Union having obtained

recognition u/s 12 of the Act of 1971, becomes the sole bargaining

khs/OCT.2016/3140-d

agent on behalf of all the workers working in the establishment for

which the recognition has been granted. In so far as a representative

union is concerned, this issue has been dealt with by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the matter of Shramik Utkarsh Sabha Vs. Raymond

Woolen Mills Ltd., 1995(I) CLR 600 = AIR 1995 SC 1137 = 1995(3)

SCC 78, by which it has been concluded that the representative

union becomes the sole bargaining agent for all the employees

working in the said establishment and covered by the Bombay

Industrial Relations act, 1946. It needs no mention that the

recognized union and the representative union have the right to

represent all the workers, notwithstanding their union affiliations.

8. Considering the above, I find that the complaints filed by the

respondent/Union were maintainable and have rightly been

adjudicated upon by the Industrial Court. As such, the first

Complaint (ULP) No.171/1990 filed by the respondent/ representative

union was maintainable. Complaint (ULP) No.35/1990 filed by the 17

workers who were covered by the complaint No.171/1990, would

therefore be rendered untenable as their grievance is already voiced

by the representative Union.

9. In the light of the above, the first petition stands dismissed.

khs/OCT.2016/3140-d

Rule is discharged. The evidence adduced by one of the employees in

Complaint (ULP) No. 35/1990 has been referred to by the Industrial

Court in paragraph No.17 of the impugned judgment, which indicates

that these employees admitted that they are members of the

representative union. Complaint (ULP) No.171/1990 was filed

subsequently and therefore these employees should have withdrawn

Complaint (ULP) No.35/1990 as their grievance and interests were

espoused by the representative union. Though the said objection to

the maintainability of the complaint was not raised by the petitioner,

being a jurisdictional issue, can be entertained by this Court even at

this stage and more so in the light of the fact that this Court has

admitted these petitions only on that solitary ground.

10. As such, the second petition is allowed and Complaint (ULP)

No.35/1990 stands dismissed. Rule is made absolute. Needless to

state, as these 17 workers from Complaint (ULP) No.35/1990 are

covered in Complaint (ULP) No.171/1990, they would stand entitled to

the benefits that have been granted by the Industrial Court vide the

impugned judgment.

11. At this stage, the learned Advocates for the respective sides

submit that there is some apprehension as to whether these benefits

khs/OCT.2016/3140-d

have been extended or not during the pendency of these proceedings.

It requires no mention that these benefits, as granted by the

Industrial Court, are to be extended to these employees and if have

still not been extended, the petitioner/factory shall initiate prompt

steps to do so within a period of 12 weeks from today.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

khs/OCT.2016/3140-d