IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Any unfair labour practice within its very concept must have some elements of arbitrariness and unreasonableness and if unfair labour practice is established the same would bring about a violation of guarantee under Article 14 of the Constitution.
(2) It may be that the number of workmen is reduced to some extent pursuant to a promotional scheme floated by a company. But no union can insist that all the workmen must remain workmen perpetually otherwise it would be an unfair labour practice. Workmen have a right to get promotion and improve their lot if the management offers them with a bona fide chance to do so.
(3) When the workers themselves do not consider the scheme floated by an employer company as unfair to them, the union cannot take upon them the burden of saying that the scheme is unfair.
(4) In the changed economic scenario, the concept of unfair labour practice is also required to be understood in the changed context. Today every State, which has to don the mantle of a welfare state, must keep in mind that twin objectives of industrial peace and economic justice and the courts and statutory bodies while deciding what unfair labour practice is must also be cognizant of the aforesaid twin objects.

Headnote:(a) Maharasthra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ¯ Sections 26, 27, 28 and 30 ¯ Appellant (No. 1) a public limited company issuing notification on 3.5.2007 for its workmen employed in its factory (Respondent No. 2) inviting applications for appearing in a selection process as an ‘Officer Trainee’ ¯ After completion of two years training, the trainees were to be designated as Junior Executive Officer ¯ Respondent No. 1 Trade Union of respondent no. 2 filing complaint under Section 28 of the Act, against the appellant company (No. 1), its Chief Manager for personnel (Appellant no. 2) and its Work Manager impugning the notification, urging that it was a move which amounted to alteration in the conditions of service of its workmen, the appellants reduction in job opportunities for the workmen, committed breach of 1982 Agreement entered into between the workmen and the Trade Union, which could not be done without prior notice required under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ¯ The appellant company and its officers restored to unfair Labour Practices mentioned in items 9 and 10 of the provisions of Section 27 of the Act ¯ The respondent union was anticipating that the management was reducing the work of the workmen category and giving it to the newly recruited officer trainees ¯ Labour Court finding that the appellants were indulging in unfair practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act ¯Appellants filing writ petition before High Court, the Single Judge affirming Labour Court’s finding of unfair labour practice ¯ Appellants filing appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court which was dismissed affirming of Single Judge ¯ Hence this appeal ¯ Supreme Court held that appellants have not indulged in any unfair labour practice ¯ Appeal allowed.
        (b) Constitution of India, Article 136 ¯ The jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 136 is a special jurisdiction ¯ This is a jurisdiction conferring residual power on the Supreme Court to do justice and is to be exercised solely on discretion to be used by this Court to advance the cause of justice ¯ There can be no hard and fast rule in the exercise of this jurisdiction ¯ Just because the findings which are assailed in a special leave petition are concurrent cannot debar the Supreme Court from exercising its jurisdiction if the demands of justice require its interference ¯ In a case where the Court finds that the concurrent finding is based on patently erroneous appreciation of basic issues involved in an adjudication, the Court may interfere. (Para 27)
        (c) Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ¯ Section 2(ra) ¯ Unfair Labour practice (s) ¯ Any unfair labour practice within its very concept must have some elements of arbitrariness and unreasonableness and if unfair labour practice is established the same would bring about a violation of guarantee under Article 14 of the Constitution ¯ Anyone who alleges unfair labour practice must plead it specifically and such allegations must be established properly before any forum can pronounce on the same ¯ In the changed economic scenario, the concept of unfair labour practice is also required to be understood in the changed context ¯ Today every State, which has to don the mantle of a welfare state, must keep in mind that twin objectives of industrial peace and economic justice and the courts and statutory bodies while deciding what unfair labour practice is must also be cognizant of the aforesaid twin objects ¯ In the instant case no allegation of victimization by respondent Union ¯Appellant’s management not punishing any workmen in any manner ¯ Clause 12 of the 1982 agreement reserves the promotional employment of existing workmen ¯ No violation of cl. 7 of 1982 Agreement ¯ Both clauses 7 and 12 to be read together ¯Workers voluntarily applied in the promotional scheme ¯ When workers do not consider promotional scheme to be unfair, the Union cannot challenge the scheme as unfair ¯ No malafide has been alleged against the appellant-company ¯ Nor it is anybody’s case that as a result of reorganization of its working pattern by introducing the scheme of promotion any person is either retrenched or is rendered surplus ¯ No malafide has been alleged by the union against the appellant-company in the matter of reorganization of its work ¯ Appellants have not indulged in unfair labour practice. (Paras 19, 22, 23, 24, 32, 33, 34 and 38).
        (d) Constitution of India, Article 14 ¯ Any unfair labour practice within its very concept must have some elements of arbitrariness and unreasonableness and if unfair labour practice is established the same would bring about a violation of guarantee under Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 19)
        (e) Indian Evidence Act 1872 ¯ Sections 1 to 4 ¯ Unfair Labour Practice ¯ Burden of proof ¯ Anyone who alleges unfair labour practice must plead it specifically and such allegations must be established properly before any forum can pronounce on the same. (Para 27)
       Facts of the Case
        Appellant (No. 1) a public limited company issuing notification on 3.5.2007 for its workmen employed in its factory (Respondent No. 2) inviting applications for appearing in a selection process as an ‘Officer Trainee’ ¯ After completion of two years training, the trainees were to be designated as Junior Executive Officer ¯ Respondent No. 1 Trade Union of respondent no. 2 filing complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 against the appellants impugning the notification, urging that it was a move which amounted to alteration in the conditions of service of its workmen, the appellants restored to unfair Labour Practices mentioned in items 9 and 10 of the provisions of Section 27 of the Act ¯ Labour Court finding that the appellants were indulging in unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act ¯Appellants filing writ petition before High Court, the Single Judge affirming Labour Court’s finding of unfair labour practice ¯ Appellants filing appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court which was dismissed affirming finding of Single Judge ¯ Hence this appeal.

JUDGMENT

Ganguly, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been preferred from the order dated 12th March, 2010 of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 30/2010.

3. The appellant no. 1 is a public limited company having its registered office at 130, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai and is engaged in the business of manufacturing switchgears, switchboards, motors, etc., of its many factories, one is located at Thane-Belapur Road, Kalwe, Thane, and houses the plant that manufactures switchboards for the company. The appellant employs about 2200 employees. The appellant no. 2 is the Chief Manager (Personnel) of the said Company.

4. Respondent no. 1, the contesting respondent, is a registered trade union of the workers employed by the appellant no.1. It is recognized under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter, referred to as the Maharashtra Act). Respondent no. 2, the pro forma respondent, represents the Switchboard Unit of the company, and is responsible for the routine functioning of the plant at Kalwe.

5. In 2007 the trade union preferred a complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Act for unfair labour practices, jointly and severally against the company, its Chief Manager for personnel (appellant no. 2) and its Works Manager (respondent no.2) before the learned Industrial Court, Thane, Maharashtra. The trade union impugned a notification dated 3rd May, 2007 issued by the company for its workmen employed in its factory located in Kalwe, whereby applications were invited to appear for a selection process to undergo a two year long period as an ‘Officer Trainee’. This training was to be in the fields of manufacturing, quality inspection and testing, logistics and technical sales order execution. The notification stated that after the successful completion of the said two years, the trainees were to be designated as ‘Junior Executive Officers’. The case of the respondent trade union is that though the designation of ‘Junior Executive Officer’ was that of an officer belonging to the management cadre, in fact it was merely a nomenclature, with negligible content of managerial work. It was urged that the job description of a Junior Executive Officer was same as that of a workman, with little additional duties. Resultantly, the Junior Executive Officers of the factory were now to do the very same work that had always been done by the workmen.

6. It was submitted that such a move was, in effect an alteration in the conditions of service of the workmen, as some vacancies available for workmen in the switch board unit were to be reserved for officers from the management cadre. Resultantly there would have been a reduction in the job opportunities for workers. According to the trade union, any such change could not have been affected without giving the workmen a prior notice to such effect in terms of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In this regard, the trade union referred to an agreement entered into between itself and the company in 1982. The said agreement, titled ‘Rationalization and Transport Settlement’ has clause (7). The said clause is as follows:-

“7. That employees or officer or staff categories shall not be asked to do normal production work.”

7. The union also referred to clause (12) of the agreement which is as follows:-

“12. That this settlement shall not be utilized for eliminating the further employment potential or promotional opportunities to the existing workmen.”

8. Clause (16) is set out herein below:

“16. This agreement shall come into force with effect from 01.01.1981 except Clause No.14 which shall have effect from 16.11.1982 only and shall remain in operation until it is changed in accordance with the provisions of law.

9. Clause (7) ensures that the job opportunities for workers shall not be reduced by the company by making its managerial staf

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 987

2011 (7) Supreme 271SUPREME COURT OF INDIAD.K. Jain and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.Siemens Ltd. & another — Appellant(s)versus Siemens Employees Union & another — Respondent(s)Civil Appeal No.8607 of 2011(Arising out of SLP(C) No.17414 of 2010)Decided on : 12-10-2011

Cases Referred (5)

2011 (7) Supreme 271
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.K. Jain and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Siemens Ltd. & another — Appellant(s)
versus
Siemens Employees Union & another — Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No.8607 of 2011
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.17414 of 2010)
Decided on : 12-10-2011