Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Letters Patent Appeal filed by Mackinon Mackenzie Ltd. (the appellant/original respondent in the complaint) against the judgment of a single judge of the Bombay High Court, which upheld the order of the Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai. The Industrial Court had declared that the respondent company committed an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act), due to non-observance of Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 and Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appellant company was engaged in shipping, ship owning, managing ships, clearing and forwarding, overseas recruitment, and property development. The complainant union, registered under the Trade Union Act, 1956, represented approximately 150 workmen at the company's Ballard Pier establishment. The union alleged that the company had a long-standing custom, usage, and practice of negotiating with the union on matters concerning workmen's services, including voluntary retirement, which amounted to a condition of service. The company, however, failed to observe this practice and also did not comply with the 'last come first go' principle under Section 25G and the procedural requirements of Rule 81 while effecting retrenchment. The Industrial Court found that the company's actions constituted an unfair labour practice. The single judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the company, affirming the Industrial Court's order. In the Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court upheld the findings of the Industrial Court and the single judge, holding that the custom and practice of negotiation with the union was a binding condition of service, and its breach, along with non-compliance with statutory provisions, amounted to an unfair labour practice. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Item 9 Schedule IV MRTU and PULP Act - Non-observance of Rule 81 of Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 and Section 25G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The Industrial Court held that the respondent company committed unfair labour practice by not observing Rule 81 and Section 25G while effecting retrenchment. The court found that the company had a custom and practice of negotiating with the complainant union on matters of service conditions, which amounted to a condition of service. The failure to follow the 'last come first go' principle and the prescribed procedure constituted unfair labour practice. (Paras 1-3) B) Industrial Law - Condition of Service - Custom and Practice - Negotiation with Union - The court held that the established custom, usage, and practice of the respondent company to negotiate with the complainant union on issues pertaining to workmen's services, including voluntary retirement, amounted to a condition of service. This practice was binding on the employer and its breach constituted an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the non-observance of Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 and Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 constitutes an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, and whether the custom and practice of negotiation with the union amounts to a condition of service.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; order of Industrial Court and judgment of single judge upheld
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Item 9 Schedule IV MRTU and PULP Act
- Non-observance of Rule 81 of Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules
- 1957
- Section 25G of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Custom and practice as condition of service
- Retrenchment
- Last come first go
