( 1 ) BY this petition, the petitioners challenges the judgment and order dated 28th February 2002 passed by the learned Member industrial Court, Mumbai dismissing their complaint bearing ULP No. 405 of 2000 as not maintainable. The facts giving rise to the petition are summarised below :-

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 runs a hotel by name Horizon Beach Hotel at Juhu, mumbai. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are the directors of the respondent No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 is one of the employees of respondent No. 1. The petitioner no. 1 is a trade union which claims to represent the workmen of the respondent no. 1. The claim, as can be seen later, is disputed by the respondents.

( 3 ) IN June 1999, the industrial relations between the management of the respondent No. 1 and its workmen became strained. According to the respondent no. 1 on or about 17th June 1999, the workmen resorted to an illegal strike, while according to the workmen it was the management that was preventing the workmen from attending the work. On 10th July 1999, Bharatiya Kamagar karmachari Sangh, the recognized union representing the workers of the respondent No. 1, filed a complaint against the respondents alleging that they were indulging in unfair labour practices under Item 6 of Schedule II and Item 9 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Unfair Labour practices Act (for short the Act) In the complaint, the recognised union alleged that the respondent No. 1 had illegally effected a lock out by preventing the workmen to attend the work and thereby had an unfair practice under Item 6 of schedule II of the Act. The recognised union also alleged that the respondents had failed to implement the settlement/agreement and had thereby committed an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. The respondent no. 1 filed a counter complaint bearing ULP No. 828 of 1999 against the recognised union alleging that the recognised union was indulging in unfair labour practice by instigating the workmen to resort to an illegal strike. On 24th february 2000, the recognised union filed a purshis before the Industrial Court stating that taking into consideration the factual true position which had come to its knowledge and possession after filing of the complaint it was satisfied that the respondent No. 1 had not effected a lock out and therefore, it did not wish to prosecute the complaint. By that purshis, it requested that the complaint be disposed of for want of prosecution. On the very day the Industrial Court passed an order below the purshis disposing of the complaint for want of prosecution. Soon thereafter four employees of the respondent No. 1 filed an application in the said complaint alleging that being dissatisfied with the functioning of the recognised union the employees of the respondent No. 1 Company had decided to resign the membership of the union and had sent the resignation letters and had become the members of the petitioner No. 1 union with effect from 1st February 2000. They prayed that they should be impleaded as parties to the complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Member of the industrial Court only orally told the said applicants that no orders can be passed on a complaint which had already been disposed. Learned counsel for the respondent does not admit that any such oral order was passed. The fact however remains that no written orders were passed by the Industrial Court and the said application was also not pursued by the applicants.

( 4 ) ON 28th April 2000, the petitioner No. 2 along with some 29 other workmen filed another complaint bearing ULP 405 of 2000 against the respondent No. 1 alleging unfair labour practices under Item 6 of Schedule II and item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. The averments made in the complaint ULP 405 of 2000 filed by petitioner No. 2 along with the 29 other workmen were almost identical to the averments made in the earlier complaint ULP 730 of 1999 filed by the recogn

Click Here to Read the rest of this document