Case Note & Summary
The appellant, M/s. Mehta Gem Tools Private Limited, challenged an order of the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2553 of 2006, which had upheld the Industrial Court's order in Complaint (ULP) No. 271 of 1999. The complaint was filed by seven workers (respondent nos. 1 to 7) under Section 28 read with Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The workers claimed that they were employed by the appellant from 1966 onwards and had worked during the period from April 1999 to March 2000 but were not paid wages for that period. The employer's defense was that there was a settlement dated 5th January 2006 between the union of employees and the employer, which was binding on the workers. The Industrial Court had allowed the complaint, directing the employer to pay wages for the said period. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. In appeal, the Division Bench examined the settlement and found that it was binding on the workers. The court noted that the workers had not worked during the lockout period and the settlement did not provide for payment of wages for that period. The court held that the employer had not committed any unfair labour practice. The appeal was allowed, the orders of the Industrial Court and the learned Single Judge were set aside, and the complaint was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Item 9 Schedule IV MRTU & PULP Act - Settlement Binding on Workers - The issue was whether non-payment of wages during a lockout period, where a settlement between the union and employer existed, constitutes an unfair labour practice. The court held that the settlement was binding on the workers and the employer was not liable to pay wages for the period when no work was done due to lockout. (Paras 1-10) B) Industrial Law - Settlement - Binding Effect - Section 28 MRTU & PULP Act - The court held that a settlement entered into between the union and the employer is binding on all workers, including those who were not members of the union. The workers cannot claim wages contrary to the terms of the settlement. (Paras 5-8) C) Industrial Law - No Work No Pay - Lockout - The court held that the principle of 'no work no pay' applies when there is a lockout and the workers did not work. The employer is not liable to pay wages for the period of lockout unless there is a specific agreement to the contrary. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the employer committed an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act by not paying wages to workers for the period April 1999 to March 2000 when there was a lockout and a settlement existed.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Orders of the Industrial Court dated 5th January 2006 and the learned Single Judge dated 5th October 2006 are set aside. Complaint (ULP) No. 271 of 1999 is dismissed.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Settlement binding on workers
- No work no pay
- Lockout
- Item 9 Schedule IV MRTU & PULP Act
