CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2657-2658 of 2005 PETITIONER: M/s. S.V. Tank & Vessel Pvt. Ltd. RESPONDENT: Engineering Workers Association DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/04/2005 BENCH: Arijit Pasayat & S.H. Kapadia JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the `Employer’) calls in question
legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High
Court directing it to furnish security/bank guarantee of a Nationalised
Bank to the extent of 50% of the amount of wages as per the calculation to
be made on the basis of the order passed by the Industrial Court,
Maharashtra at Thane.
The background facts as projected by the appellant are as follows :-
The employer retrenched 33 employees after giving notice of retrenchment
alongwith cheques covering the notice pay and retrenchment compensation.
Some of the workers refused to accept the same. On account of financial
stringency and reduction of work force, Voluntary Retirement Scheme was
announced which was availed by 72 employees. The respondent-Association,
however, instigated some of the employees not to opt for the scheme. Some
of the employees took law into their own hands and tried to destroy the
appellant’s properties and this created chaotic conditions for which the
appellant was forced to lodge complaint in the Industrial Court and orders
were passed prohibiting some workmen from coming within a radius of 100
meters of the appellant’s establishment. With a view to be charitable to
the employees, letters were addressed to workers to join work, who refused
to work and continued with the strike. Complaint was filed by the
respondent-Association in the Industrial Court questioning retrenchment.
Appellant filed a Written Statement and claimed that the relief claimed
could not be adjudicated by the Industrial Court and it has no jurisdiction
to deal with the matter. According to the appellant, it was only the Labour
Court which could deal with the matter. The Industrial Court passed an
order holding that the retrenchment of the concerned workers to be illegal.
The Industrial Court, inter alia, gave the following directions :
“(a)…..Reinstate 33 workmen in Annexure-C with full back wages. Their
retrenchment order is set aside.
(b) They are directed to pay bonus at the rate of 22% for the year 1990-91
to the workmen except the persons who are not collected including 33
retrenched workmen.
(c) Respondent to provide as per the terms of settlement pair of safty
shoes and uniforms.
(d) Allow other non-retrenched employees on duty and to pay them the dues
from the days when they are not allowed to do the work i.e. from
24.10.1991.
(e) They are directed to pay salary and wages of the workmen on the due
dates i.e. 7th of every month.”
The stand of the appellant is that in terms of The Maharashtra Recognition
of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (in
short the `Act’) the proceedings before the Industrial Court were clearly
not maintainable and order passed by the Industrial Court is without
jurisdiction.
A Writ Petition was filed by the employer before the Bombay High Court. A
learned Single Judge passed an interim order, and stayed operation of
directions 3(c) to 3(e).
The interim order was challenged in a writ appeal before the Division Bench
by the respondent-Association and the direction for furnishing
security/bank guarantee as noted above was given.
In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
without indicating as to how learned Single Judge’s interim order was in
any way illegal or deficient, a Division Bench should not have directed
furnishing of security/bank guarantee. The proceedings before the
Industrial Court were clearly without jurisdiction and this aspect has not
been considered by the Division Bench.
In response, learned counsel for the respondent-Association submitted that
blanket order of stay was passed by learned Single Judge. Division Bench
was justified in protecting the interest of the workman in whose favour the
Industrial Court had decided. Therefore, this is not a fit case which calls
any interference as dispute revolves round interim protection given to the
successful employees.
Division Bench has thought it proper to make the interim order conditional.
Basic issue relates to jurisdiction of the Industrial Court. Additionally,
the justifiability of the orders of retrenchment has to be gone into. It is
pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the back wages on
the basis of the Industrial Court’s order have to be paid from 1991 and if
the impugned order is maintained, the appellant who is not in good
financial state would be required to provide nearly rupees 40 lakhs for the
purpose of obtaining bank guarantee. Taking peculiar facts into account we
feel interest of justice would be best served if the appellant pays each of
the concerned employees an amount equivalent to two years’ wages on the
basis of the last wages drawn within eight weeks from today, without
prejudice to the claims involved in the Writ Petition. Considering the
limited nature of the controversy, the High Court is requested to explore
the possibility of early disposal of the writ petition.
The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.