JUDGMENT - R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---Heard the learned Counsel of all the parties.

2. Rule. To be heard forthwith by consent of the parties as the petition can be disposed of at this stage itself.

3. The petitioner company is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 25-2-2002 passed by the learned member of the Industrial Court in Complaint U.L.P. No. 1087 of 1996 filed by 10 employees of the petitioner company, respondent Nos. 1 to 10 herein, under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the MRTU PULP Act). It is held by the learned member of the Industrial Court that the petitioner company has engaged in an unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act and has directed it to cease permanently from continuing to engage in the unfair labour practice and directed to pay the arrears of wages and benefits to be calculated in the terms of the settlement dated 30th December, 1989 between the petitioner company and the Mumbai Muzdoor Sabha the recognised Union respondent No. 11, without obtaining any declaration from them. The Industrial Court further directed the petitioner company to pay the arrears to them without insisting for any declaration from them but after deducting 5% of the gross arrears towards levy of the recognised Union, respondent No. 11. The Industrial Court also restrained the petitioner company from recovering Rs. 48/- from the respondents Nos. 1 to 10 employees as membership subscription of the said Union.

4. The respondent employees had filed the said complaint of unfair labour practice before the Industrial Court for payment of arrears as directed by the Supreme Court of India payable under the Bachawat Award. It is not necessary for me to refer to the said Bachawat Award and the proceedings before the Supreme Court as the Bachawat Award has made an exemption to any bilateral settlement between the parties, and therefore, the service conditions of the employees are to be governed by such bilateral settlement.

5. In the present case there is no dispute that the respondent No. 11, the Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha, a recognised union under the MRTU PULP Act is functioning in the establishment of the petitioner company and is representing the employees employed by the petitioner company. There is also no dispute that there has been a bilateral settlement between the said Union and the petitioner company signed on 30-12-1989 under section 18(1) read with section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rule 62 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules. The service conditions of the employees are governed by the said settlement and the same is binding on all the employees and also the petitioner company. The grievance of the respondents 1 to 10 employees was that the petitioner company had not given the benefits of the said settlement to them. It was also their grievance that the petitioner company was insisting on them to sign a declaration as prescribed in the Clause 20 of the said settlement read with Clause 22 and the form of declaration. According to the said employees they were entitled to get the benefits of the settlement without any declaration as prescribed in the said settlement. It was also their case that they were not the members of the recognized Union and therefore, they opposed payment of 5% of gross arrears plus Rs. 48/- “towards Sabha's levies” under Clause 22 of the said settlement as a condition to get the benefits thereunder. It is clear from the contention of the employees that they belonged to a rival union and that they did not subscribe to the philosophy of the recognised Union and therefore they were opposed to give any donation and any levy to the said Union. As a matter of principle the employees insisted that they were entitled to get the benefits of the settlement without any deduction from their arrears either towards the donation or towards t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document