ORDER

1. The appellant filed a complaint in the year 1984 against the respondent-Management complaining unfair labour practices under Item 9 of Schedule IV to the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter called "the Act"). The main grievance made in the complaint was that the conditions of service of the field staff were unilaterally altered to their disadvantage by the order of the Management dated 30-6-1975 which was contrary to the settlement reached between the parties in the year 1971. It was further stated that the 1971 settlement was based on an agreement reached between the parties during the year 1957. The main thrust of the complainant was that the unilateral change in the conditions of service by the 1975 order was against the 1971 settlement which was based on the 1957 agreement. The Industrial Court, Maharashtra framed the following 4 issues :

(1) Does complaint prove that the respondent has committed unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV by committing failure to implement settlement, dated 27-1-1971 and the agreement arrived at under the correspondent entered into with the complainant in 1957 ?

(2) Whether the case is barred by limitation ?

(3) Whether the complaint is barred by principle of res judicata ?

(4) What order ?

2. Issue I was decided against the Management and it was held by the Industrial Tribunal that the field staff was entitled to the benefits accrued to them under the 1971 settlement. The other three issues were also decided against the Management. On Issue 2 the Industrial Tribunal came to the conclusion that the complaint filed by the appellant was within limitation. The conclusion of the Industrial Tribunal is based on the following reasoning :

"It is significant to note and remember that sometime in the year 1970 the Bombay Centre of the Sabha preferred a charter of demands with the respondent-Company not only pertaining to the members of the Bombay Branch field force but also to the other clerical workmen employed in the respondent-Companys Bombay office establishments which came to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, and the status of the field force came to be, for the first time, disputed by the Company as not being workmen under the provisions of the ID Act, which reference was to be numbered as Ref. (IT) No. 203 of 1970. The said reference was decided on 6-1-1975. During the pendency of the said reference the respondent-Company entered into All-India settlement on the charter of demands on behalf of the members of the field force, but did not implement the same as far as Bombay Branch field force was concerned since the dispute was pending adjudication before the said Industrial Tribunal. Copy of the said All-India settlement, dated 27-1-1971, in the charter of demands pertaining to the members of the field force all over India is produced at Annexure C to the complaint.

Ref. (IT) No. 203 of 1970 was adjudicated upon against the workmen declaring that they were not workmen. It seems that the said judgment was challenged in the higher courts, but in vain.

It is undisputed that some other developments have taken place after the pronouncement of the order of Industrial Tribunal of Shri M. G. Chitale in January 1975. It is not necessary to refer to the said developments as necessary care in that regard can be taken in the lower part of this order as and when necessary.

However, it is necessary to mention that during the period of all these developments the respondents terminated the services of Sabhas working President without any domestic enquiry. It was challenged before the Delhi Industrial Tribunal. In that proceeding also the management has taken a stand that the reference was not maintainable because the said employee was not a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act. The submissions made by the management found favour with the Tribunal. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order