The main legal point established in the judgment is that employees who accepted the first VRS had the right to file a complaint under section 28 of the Act and represent all similarly situated employees. The court also emphasized that the company's breach of the agreement with the employees who accepted the first VRS amounted to unfair labour practices.

JUDGMENT - V.K. BARDE, J.:---The respondent in Complaint (U.L.P.) No. 519 of 1994, which was filed by the original complainants-respondents Nos. 1 to 6 herein before the Industrial Court, Thane, has filed the present writ petition challenging the order passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Thane in the said complaint on October 24, 1996.

2.The present respondents Nos. 1 to 6 original complainants Nos. 1 to 6 (hereinafter referred to as "the complainants") filed a complaint alleging that the present petitioner-original respondent-company (hereinafter referred to as the "company") committed unfair labour practice under Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

3.The complainants contended that they and others were the employees of company. The present petitioner-company declared a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the "VRS") on June 30, 1992. Thereafter, there were talks between the company and the union of the employees with respect of the said VRS. The employees were not willing to accept the VRS. However, the management prevailed over the employees to accept the VRS. As an outcome of that talks between the management of company and the union, the Vice President of the company, by his letter dated July 10, 1992 informed to the union that there was no intention to continue the manufacturing operations at Thane unit. It was, however, made clear that if at all the company decides to restart the manufacturing operations, all things being equal, the company will give preference to the person who had been in the employment of the company prior to their separations under the VRS. Then in continuation of this letter, the Vice President of the company addressed another letter on July 11, 1992 to the union that there was apprehension in the minds of the employees that who did not accept the VRS on that occasion could be paid more and, therefore, it was assured that the company would not indulge in any such discrimination, whatever was being offered was the highest. According to the complainants, because of these assurances by the management of the company, most of the employees accepted the VRS.

4.However, as all the employees had not accepted the VRS, the company declared second scheme of the VRS on March 16, 1994 and under that scheme additional benefit of lump sum payment of Rs. 90,000/- was offered to the employees. It is, therefore, the contention of the complainants that the company had entered into an agreement with the employees that no better benefits would be given to the employees who had or not accepted the first VRS and that the agreement was breached by the company by declaring the second VRS granting thereunder additional benefits to the employees accepting the second VRS. This, according to the complainants, amounted to unfair labour practices under Items Nos. 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule 4 of the Act, and hence the complaint under section 28 of the Act.

5.The company filed its written statement and contested the matter. The learned Member, Industrial Court, Thane, recorded evidence of both the sides and then came to the conclusion that the company had engaged itself in unfair labour practices as alleged by the complainants, and directed the present petitioner-company to desist from such unfair labour practices and also directed the company to pay the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and a reasonable interest thereon from August 1992 till the date of such payment to such of ex-employees who had accepted the first VRS as per notice dated June 30, 1992. The complainants had annexed a list of the employees who had accepted the VRS as declared on June 30, 1992 and those employees named in the list were held to be entitled for this additional monetary benefit.

6.The main contention of the company in this petition is that the complainants were not the employees of the company when they

Click Here to Read the rest of this document