JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---Exception is taken by the petitioner Blue Star Limited to the direction given by the Industrial Court in its operative order dated 22-12-1995 while dismissing the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 Blue Star Workers Union, by means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

2.The petitioner Blue Star Limited ('employer') is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in business of air-conditioning products and projects, software exports, medical electronics etc. and has its factory at Pokhran Road, Thane and western regional office at Band Box House, Mumbai. The first respondent Blue Star Workers Union ('union') is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. It is the case of the employer that on 1st July, 1988 from 10.50 a.m. to 11.15 a.m., 29 employees who were members of the union entered the cabin of Mr. Anil B. Sawant, Manager - Administration and Personnel and gheraoed him. The employees, according to the employer, neither took prior permission from their superiors before leaving their respective places of work nor they took permission of Mr. Sawant before entering his cabin. On 11th July, 1988, the employer issued notice displaying it on notice board stating therein that the act of 29 employees whose names were shown in the notice gheraoing the Manager Personnel and Administration of its western regional office at Band Box House from 10.50 a.m. to 11.15 a.m. on July 1, 1988 amounted to stoppage of work in a concerted manner, withdrawing their labour unilaterally and the employees absented themselves from work for 25 minutes from 10.50 a.m. to 11.15 a.m. and therefore, the said employees shall not be paid the wages for the said period having not earned the same and the adjustment would be carried out in the salaries for the month of July, 1988. The union challenged the said notice as an unfair labour practice on the part of the employer by filing complaint under Item 9, of Schedule IV, of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, 'MRTU PULP Act'). The union set out the case in the complaint that the allegations levelled by the employer in the notice dated July 11, 1988 were factually not true and correct. The said notice was bad in law being violative of principles of natural justice and against the rules and regulations framed by the employer. According to the union the contract of employment could not be divided in minutes and hours as has been sought to be made out by the employer and the directions were in fact punitive in nature amounting to unfair labour practice. The said complaint was resisted by the employer. The written statement was filed and employer raised the plea that complaint did not disclose any unfair labour practice on its part nor the employer committed any unfair labour practice under Item 9, of Schedule IV, of the MRTU PULP ACT. The employer justified its action and submitted that the conduct of the concerned employees on 1st July, 1988 in gheraoing Manager, Administration and Personnel was violative of Clauses 26, 28, 35 and 79 of the Rules and Regulations framed by the employer. Before the Industrial Court the union examined Shri. Shyam Ramkrishna Maheshwari while on behalf of the employer the Personnel Manager Shri Anil B. Sawant was examined. The parties also provided certain documents before the Industrial Court

3.The Industrial Court after hearing the parties held that there was no violation of any agreement, award or any law at the hands of the employer by deducting the wages of the group of the workers for 25 minutes and the complaint filed by the union was liable to be rejected. The Industrial Court held that the employer was entitled to deduct wages proportionately for the period of absence and that the concerned workmen committed misconduct by not taking permission of Mr. Sawant before entering his cabin. Despite th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document