Back
2014 Supreme(Bom) 429
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
M.S. SONAK, J.
Haldyn Glass Limited & Another
Versus
Maharashtra General Kamgar Union & Others
Writ Petition Nos. 972 of 2008, 973, 974, 975, 976, 977, 978, 979, 1083, 1084, 1085, 1095, 1096, 1097 of 2008 & 1892 of 2008
Decided On: 20-02-2014
For the Petitioners:V.P. Vaidya, Advocate.
For the Respondents:N.M. Ganguli, Advocate.
Headnote:INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ACT, 1947 - Sections 2-A, 2(k) and 10 - Reference of dispute. - An industrial dispute under reference, either under Section 2-A or under Section 2(k) of Act, makes no difference.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ACT, 1947 - Section 10 - MRTUPULP Act, 1971, Sections 25 and 59 - Declaration of strike as illegal. - Order, passed by Industrial Court under MRTU Act, declaring strike as illegal, is binding under MRTU Act.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ACT, 1947 - Sections 10 and 11-A - Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 227 - Reference. - Since enquiry held by following principles of natural justice, is fair and proper hence interference with findings of facts in judicial review declined.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ACT, 1947 - Section 10(1)(c) and 10(2) - Scope and import of. - Since Section 10(1)(c) and 10(2) of Act are distinct and different hence concept of "recognized union" cannot be introduced in Section 10(1)(c) of Act.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ACT, 1947 - Section 11-A - Grant of backwages. - Labour Court, while granting backwages, required to keep in mind considerations.
1. As substantially common questions of law and fact arise in these batch of Petitions, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. All these Writ Petitions take exception to the Awards made by the 1st and 10th Labour Courts, Mumbai. The Labour Courts have denied the relief of reinstatement to the dismissed workmen. However, compensation / back wages in the range of Rs.2 Lacs to Rs.6 Lacs came to be awarded to most of the workmen involved in the dispute.
3. The Writ Petition No.1892 of 2008 has been preferred by the Union objecting to denial of reinstatement or in the alternate urging that the compensation / back wages awarded is not commensurate. The rest of the Writ Petitions have been preferred by the employer, contending that no relief whatsoever ought to have been granted in favour of the union / workmen.
4. For the sake of convenience, the particulars of the References, workmen involved therein, relief granted etc. are set out in the chart beneath :-
1st LABOUR COURT:
Sr. No W.P. No. Reference No. Workmen concerned Relief granted (compensation)
1. 972/2008 802/1988 1. Vasant Shripat Mahadik2. Sidhayee Jagnu (examined)
3. Sabhajeet (examined)
4. Babaji Prasad
5. Asappa Nagappa 1. Unclear2. Rs. 6 Lacs
3. Rs. 6 Lacs
4. unclear
5. unclear
2. 973/2008 798/1988 1. Prakash Ramchandra2. Ramlakhan Sadhu
3. Prabhakar Devu (examined)
4. Narsaappa Sayappa
5. Ganpat Shivram 1. Unclear2. Unclear
3. Rs.6 lacs
4) Unclear
5) Unclear
3. 974/2008 830/1988 1. Dashrath Vithal Kharat2. Jahid Hussain (examined)
3. Ramshankar Sharma
4. Abdul Ghani 5. Ramkripal
6. Ramkumar Varma (exaimed) 1. unclear2. Rs. 5 Lacs
3. unclear
4. unclear
5. unclear
6. Rs.6 Lacs
4. 975/2008 811/1988 1. Balkrishna Hanumanta Rane2. Mohammed Sharif Sarju (examined)
3. Bhimrao Maruti 1. Rs.2 Lacs2. Rs. 6 Lacs
3. unclear
5. 976/2008 801/1988 1. Mohan Methasaram Yadav2. Parasnath Bhagwati Tiwari
3. Kundanlal G.
4. Budhiram B.
5. Raj Bahadur Singh
6. Mohammd Ayub
7. Lalji Ramchandra 1. unclear2. unclear
3. Rs. 3 Lacs
4. unclear
5. Rs. 3 Lacs
6. unclear
7. unclear
6. 977/2008 797/1988 1. Mohan Bapusaheb Raje Shirke (examined)2. Purshottam Bapusaheb Raje Shirke (examined)
3. Laxman Shivram Ghat (examined) 1. Rs. 3 Lacs2. Rs. 3 Lacs
3. Rs.3 Lacs
7. 979/2008 809/1988 1. Jaggu Shyamlal (examined)2. Kishor Bhaggu Rane
3. Santosh Nihal Patil
4. Tukaram Ganpat
5. Sonu Parshuram (examined)
6. Limbaya Sainath
7. Pandurang Aysu 1. Rs. 6 Lacs2. unclear
3. unclear
4. unclear
5. Rs.6 Lacs
6. unclear
7. unclear
8. 1095/2008 800/1988 1. Mohammed Farid2. Pyarelal
3. Nasir Ahmed (examined)
4. Ramnath Ramkishan
5. Balaram Tukaram
6. Uttam Tukaram (examined) 1. unclear2. unclear
3. Rs. 5 Lacs
4. unclear
5. unclear
6. Continuity in
service from
24.6.1986 till
21.6.2006
9. 1096/2008 810/1988 1. Nagurao Gyanba (examined)2. Sabir Ali (examined)
3. Asgar Hussain 1. Rs. 4 Lacs2. Rs. 4 Lacs
3. Rs. 3 Lacs
10. 1097/2008 799/1988 1. Manohar Shinde2. Babulal Choudhary
3. Anand Jayram (examined) 1. unclear2. unclear
3. Rs.4 Lacs
10th Labour Court
Sr. No W.P. No. Reference No. Workmen concerned Relief granted (compensation)
1. 978/2008 813/1988 1. Shivaji Suryabhan2. Amritlal Ram Avtar
3. Maghum Prasad Girdharilal 4. Tulsi Ram achai Sharma 5. Dilip Tukaram (examined) 1. Rs. 2 Lacs2. Rs. 2 Lacs
3. Rs. 2 Lacs
4. Rs. 2 Lacs
5. Rs.4 Lacs
2. 1083/2008 805/1988 1.ChandrakantSakharamMayekar
2. Manohar Kaluram
Mohite
3. Sheeth Besant
4. Mahango Gopi
5. Rukanna Yallappa 1. Rs. 2 Lacs2. Rs. 2 Lacs
3. Rs. 2 Lacs
4. Rs. 2 Lacs
5. Rs. 2 Lacs
3. 1084/2008 807/1988 1. Bhimayya Balappa2. Baban Sakharam
3. Kishan Tukaram
4. Haridas Vithal
5. Dukhiram Ram Avtar
* The Labour Court has
awarded Rs.2 Lacs to
one Rajavandi Subaiya 1. Rs. 2 Lacs2. Rs. 2 Lacs
3. Rs. 2 Lacs
4. Rs. 2 Lacs 5. Rs. 2 Lacs
4. 1085/2008 804/1988 1. Banarasi Rahunath Pasi2. Narayan Waman 1. Rs. 2 Lacs2. Rs. 2 Lacs
5. The employer Haldyn Glass Limited had established an industry for the manufacture of glass wares in Mum
