JUDGMENT
1. By this writ petition, the Company seeks to challenge Judgment and Order passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 1017 of 1994. By the impugned order, the above complaint filed by the Union particularly came to be allowed. By the impugned order, the Industrial Court declared that the Company had engaged i in unfair labour practices under Item 5 of Schedule 11 of the Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as ‘the said Act, 1971’)
2. Mr. Koehar the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Company contended that the Industrial Court erred in the present matter, in coming to the conclusion that the Company was guilty of unfair labour practice. Mr. Kochar invited my attention to the correspondence and submitted that in view of the contents of the letters addressed by the President of the Union and in view of the allegations made therein, it was impossible for the Company to enter into even negotiations on Charter of Demands submitted by the Union to the Company. Mr. Koehar contended that the letters indicate that the Officers as well as the Advocates have been fourteen by the Union, as evidenced by the said letters and in the circumstances, the Industrial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the Company was guilty of unfair labour practice under 30 Item 5 of Schedule 11 to the said Act, 1971.
3. Mr. Cama, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union, on the other hand, contended that in the present matter, the Union repeatedly called upon the Company to negotiate their Charter of Demands submitted by the Union. Mr. Cama further contended that the correspondence on which reliance is placed by Shri Koehar, learned counsel for the Company, was go the outcome of frustration because the Union realised that the Company was adopting delaying tactics and the Company was trying to take the matter into adjudication because it was Mlyaware of the fact that adjudication would take several years. Mr. Cama further contended that in the above circumstances, the Industrial Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the Company was guilty of unfair labour practice under item 5 of Sch. 11 to the said Act, 1971.
4. I have considered the rival contentions. In this matter, on the one hand, we have acrimonious correspondence in which the Union has used threatening language against the Officers of the Company. The letters indicate allegations against the Advocates for the Company. On the other hand, we have Charter of Demands of the workmen. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the President of the Union wrote letters out of exasperation, the Industrial Court ought not to have given a declaration of unfair labour practice under Item 5 of Schedule 11 because the charge of unfair labour practice is a very serious charge involving penal consequences. To that extent, I find merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the Company. However, the matter concerning Charter of Demands ought not to be protracted any further only on the ground that acrimonious correspondence has ensued in the matter. The matter was argued before me at length. The Company has insisted that it would like the entire matter to go through Conciliation Machinery and in the event of the Failure Report, the Government may refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal under S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is for this reason that I have directed expedition of the entire process, both at the stage of conciliation and, if necessary before the Industrial Tribunal. This is also because the Company has agreed to give ad hoc increase of only Rs. 300; per month pending negotiations and/or Reference(s) before the Industrial Tribunal. Taking into account the above facts and circumstances of the case, the following order is passed.
ORDER
5. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the writ petition with no order as to costs subject to the following conditions :
(i) that the conciliation proceedings will start immediately on the Charter of Demands submitted by the Union and the Company. The requisite papers will he filed before the Conciliation Officer on or before February 11, 1997. The Conciliation Officer will call the parties within one week. The Conciliation Officer will thereafter enter upon the conciliation and in case the Conciliation fails, he will submit a Failure Report on or 10 before March 3, 1997. In case, the Failure Report is filed, the Government (Respondent No. 3 herein) is directed to make Reference(s) to the appropriate Industrial Tribunal on or before April 1, 1997.
(ii) The Industrial Tribunal will hear and decide the said Reference within four months from the date when the Reference is made by the Appropriate Government to the Tribunal. The Reference(s) is directed to be heard on day-to-day basis by the Industrial Tribunal.
(iii) The Company is directed to pay ad hoc increase of Rs. 300/- per month to 98 workmen unilaterally during the pendency of the Conciliation proceedings and in case of Failure Report, the Company will continue to pay ad hoc increase of Rs. 300/- per month to the said workmen during the pendency of the Reference(s) before the Industrial Tribunal.
(iv) In case of the Conciliation Officer filing Failure Reports, the Appropriate Government will make two separate References to the competent Industrial Tribunal. In that event, the Government is directed to make both the References to the same Tribunal who will then hear and dispose of both the References as per the programme indicated hereinabove. This is because there are two Charters of Demands, one by the Company and other by the Union.
6. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
7. Issuance of certified copy of this order is expedited.
Thursday, February 13, 1997
ORDER ON APPLICATION FOR SPEAKING TO THE MINUTES DATED FEBRUARY 7, 1997 :
8. This application has been moved by the Company by way of an application for speaking to the minutes.
9. In the above matter, when the Order was passed on February 4, 1997, it was on the basis that the Company has agreed to pay certain amount as and by way of ad hoc increase with effect from January 1, 1997. At that time, when the matter was dictated in Court, I had expressly stated that Mr. Cama, learned counsel for the Union has agreed to withdraw all allegations made against the Company, their Officers and the matter. in future, the President of the Union will not make allegations and he will not use abusive and threatening language. This statement has not been recorded in the final order dated February 4, 1997. Accordingly, the following Order is passed :
ORDER
10. In the operative part of the Order following stipulations stand incorporated as follows :
Respondent No. 1 shall withdraw all letters addressed to the Company using abusive, threatening and derogatory language and that Respondent No. 1 shall not, in future, use such language in the letters addressed to the Company. Both the learned Advocates for the Company and the Union further state that they unconditionally withdraw all allegations and counter allegations made against each other in the matter.