Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Tata Yazaki Autocomp Ltd., a company manufacturing wire harness for the automobile sector employing around 500 permanent workmen in Pune, challenged an order dated 23rd January 2012 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Pune. The Industrial Court had allowed a complaint under Section 28 read with Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The complaint was filed by the Tata Yazaki Employees Union (respondent No.1) alleging that the company had engaged in unfair labour practice by failing to implement the terms of an Award in Reference (I.T.) No. 24/2002 and a Settlement dated 30/9/2004 in respect of certain employees. The background facts reveal that in 2002, the recognized union, Rashtriya Shramik Aghadi, raised general demands for wage rise and other benefits for permanent employees. These demands were referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Pune, as Reference (IT) No. 24 of 2002. During the pendency of the reference, on 30th September 2004, the company and the respondent union signed a settlement granting wage rise and other benefits to employees who were permanent as on 31st March 2004. The Industrial Court, after hearing the parties, passed the impugned order declaring that the company had engaged in unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act and directed the company to cease and desist from such practice and to implement the terms of the Award and Settlement in respect of the employees involved in the complaint. The High Court, in this writ petition, examined the legality of the Industrial Court's order. The court noted that the Industrial Court had correctly applied the law and found that the company's failure to implement the Award and Settlement amounted to an unfair labour practice. The High Court upheld the Industrial Court's order, dismissing the writ petition. The court held that the employer's denial of benefits to the workmen, which were already settled through an Award and a Settlement, constituted an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The court directed the employer to implement the terms of the Award and Settlement and to extend the benefits to the employees entitled under law. The judgment reinforces the principle that employers must honour settlements and awards and cannot unilaterally deny benefits to workmen without justification.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Item 9 Schedule IV MRTU & PULP Act - Employer's failure to implement Award and Settlement - The Industrial Court allowed the complaint under Section 28 read with Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, declaring that the employer engaged in unfair labour practice by not implementing the terms of an Award in Reference (I.T.) No. 24/2002 and a Settlement dated 30/9/2004 in respect of the employees involved in the complaint. The Court directed the employer to cease and desist from such practice and to extend the benefits of the said Award and Settlement to the employees entitled under law. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the employer's failure to implement the terms of an Award and Settlement in respect of certain employees constitutes an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Industrial Court's order dated 23rd January 2012, directing the employer to implement the terms of the Award in Reference (I.T.) No. 24/2002 and the Settlement dated 30/9/2004 in respect of the employees involved in the complaint, and to cease and desist from unfair labour practice.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Item 9 Schedule IV MRTU & PULP Act
- implementation of settlement
- denial of benefits to workmen
- cease and desist order
