The judgment emphasizes that the extension of benefits of a settlement to employees should be in line with the communication and actions of the employer, and insisting on conditions not communicated initially may amount to unfair labour practice.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule taken up for hearing forthwith with consent of Counsel.

2. This writ petition challenges an order passed by the Industrial Court at Thane on a complaint of unfair labour practice. The complaint was filed by the Petitioner herein under Section 28, read with items 2(a), 2(b) and 3 of Schedule II and items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 (''Act'').

3. The controversy in the complaint concerns extending of benefits and facilities of a settlement entered into by the Respondent establishment with a rival union to the employees represented by the complainant union. The complainant union was opposing the settlement originally. It claimed to be the recognised union of employees working with the Respondent establishment. It had submitted its own charter of demands, which, according to the Respondents, were far too higher than what was agreed in the settlement with the rival union. Its grievance before the Industrial Court was that though it was ready and willing to settle the issue of charter of demands with the Respondents, the latter was deliberately and intentionally refusing to discuss the matter and negotiate with the complainant union. It was submitted that in order to break the unity of workers and to keep its own puppet union, the management of the Respondent company had taken initiative for formation of a rival internal union, viz. Lloyd Kamgar Sanghatana, with the help of disgruntled elements among the workers and proceeded to enter into a settlement with this union (settlement of 22 August 2009). It was submitted by the complainant union that the complainant union had addressed a letter (letter dated 9 September 2011) requesting the Respondents to extend the benefits of the settlement to its members on par with the non-members, who were purportedly part of the internal union, namely, Lloyd Kamgar Sanghatana. It was the case of the complainant union that non-extension of these benefits to its members amounted to unfair labour practice. It was particularly submitted that the Respondents were agreeable to extend the benefits of the settlement to the members of the complainant union, only if they were agreeable to give an undertaking in a particular format. It was submitted that this insistence amounted to indulgence in an unfair labour practice. The union also invoked the principle of equal work equal pay for its claim of extension of the benefits of the settlement to its member-employees. The complainant finally relied upon its letter addressed to the Respondents sometime before the filing of the complaint (letter dated 18 May 2012), wherein they had made a request to extend all benefits of the settlement of 22 August 2009 to their members against acceptance letters to be submitted by them and pay them arrears arising out of the settlement.

4. It is pertinent to note that pending hearing of the complaint, at the interim stage, an application was made on behalf of the complainant union that its members were ready and willing to accept the settlement and give up their demands. The Respondent management replied this application on the same day pointing out that it had no objection to extend all benefits of the settlement to the complainant unions members, provided they individually gave letters accepting the settlement in the prescribed format. It appears that the Industrial Court, on that very day, passed an order to the effect that individual employees should submit letters of acceptance in a prescribed format, whereupon benefits of the settlement would be made applicable to them. It appears that, in pursuance of this order, on the very next day, i.e. 22 September 2012, the Respondents displayed a notice calling upon the employees to submit applications in prescribed format for accepting settlement as per the order of the Industrial Court. This was followed by another notice displayed by the Respondents reiterating the earlier notice. Finally, on