Prakash Cotton Mills Ltd. and ors vs Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh and Others

S.H. Kapadia, J.—By this writ petition the Petitioners seeks to challenge the interim order of the Industrial Court dated 5th September 1990 in Complaint (ULP) No. 26 of 1990.

Briefly the facts giving rise to this Writ Petition are as follows :-

(a) The above Complaint has been filed by Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh. It is a representative Union under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. It represents majority of workmen. It is not in dispute that in Prakash Cotton Mills Ltd. there is no recognised union, under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971. The said Complaint No. 26 of 1990 is for various reliefs. The Complaint is filed under Item 5 of Schedule II as well as Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV to the said act, 1971. The said Complaint interalia is to the effect that the Company is not allowing Union to use the Notice Board for exhibiting notices on the premises of the Undertaking; that the Company is refusing to hold discussions with the Union regarding settlement of Industrial disputes; that no discussions are being held to redress the grievances of the workmen in the undertaking; that the Company is refusing to enter into the collective bargaining with the Union and in the circumstances it is alleged that the Company was guilty of Unfair Labour Practices. By an interim order passed by the Industrial Court, the Company is directed by the Industrial Court to allow the Union and/or its representative to visit the premises for inspection, to allow the Union to use Notice Board, to hold discussions on the premises of the Undertaking with the employees and/or their representative who are the members of the Union and to meet and discuss grievances of the employees in the Undertaking and finally the Company is directed not to refuse collective bargaining with the Union.

(b) Being aggrieved by the interim order, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the Company.

It is argued on behalf of the Petitioner Company that the Complaint Union is not a recognised Union under the provisions of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. In the above circumstances, it is contended interalia that the provisions of Unfair Labour Practices Act are not attracted. It is further contended that the Industrial Court has no jurisdiction to issue the above directions particularly because the Complaint Union is not a recognised Union although it is a representative Union under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. Secondly, it is contended that by virtue of the impugned Order, the entire complaint of the Union is disposed of. In the above circumstances, it is contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of this Court reported in 1982 LIC 1533 in the case of Mills Mazdoor Sangh v. Bombay Dyeing. It was submitted that in view of ratio of the said decision refusal to collectively bargain with the Complainant Union will not constitute Unfair Labour Practices and in the circumstances the Labour Court ought to have dismissed the Complaint.

I do not find any merit in the above contentions. Firstly, the impugned order is an interim order. Secondly, the Complaint is filed by the Union invoking various items of the Unfair Labour Practices Act which require detailed examination on evidence. For example, allowing the Union to use the Notice Board of the Company for displaying its notices. This, it is alleged constituted unfair labour practices. These circumstances are required to be appreciated by evidence at the final hearing of the case. Thirdly, it is not in dispute that the Complainant Union is a representative union under the Bombay industrial Relations Act. It is entitled to enter into Agreement/Settlement with the employers Association under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. It will have to be examined in the light of the complaint filed in the present case as to whether the Petitioner Company is guilty of unfair labour practice under the said Act as alleged by the Union. In the above circumstances, the Industrial Court was right, prima facie, in giving the above directions except the last direction viz., that the Company should not refuse to bargain collectively in good faith with the complainant Union. In view of the judgment of this Court reported in 1982 LIC 1533, the Industrial court, at this stage of the matter viz., interim stage cannot direct the Company to enter into the collective bargaining with the Union. However, it is clarified that since the Component Union is the representative Union under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act it is certainly entitled to enter into Agreement/Settlement with the Association of Employers. In view of the fact that the Complaint is pending from 1990 and since rights of both the parties are in issue, the Industrial Court, Bombay, is directed to hear and decide the said Complaint No. 26 of 1990 within four months from the date the industrial Court receives the papers and proceedings alongwith the writ duly conveyed by the office of this Court pursuant to the present Order.

In the above circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order, save and except that during the interregnum and during pendency of the Complaint, the Company shall not be compelled to enter into collective bargaining with the Complainant Union. All other directions of the Industrial Court are upheld. There is no reason to interfere with those orders, subject to one clarification that the observations made hereinabove and observations made by the Industrial Court are to be treated as prima facie observations and they will not bind the Industrial Court while deciding the complaint finally.

For the above reasons, Writ Petition is partly allowed with no order as to costs.

Certified copy expedited.