An isolated change in a holiday or weekly off, without materially or adversely affecting the employees, does not constitute unfair labour practice under the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 and Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

ORDER :

R.J. Kochar, J.—The petitioner company is aggrieved by the impugned order dated February 15, 1994 passed by the Industrial Court, Pune in Complaint ULP No. 45/1994 filed by the respondent union for a declaration that the petitioner company had engaged in unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 (for short the Act), by shifting the weekly off which fell on January 27, 1994 i.e. Thursday to January 26, 1994 i.e. Wednesday (Republic Day) by its notice dated January 5, 1994. According to the respondent union, the petitioner company had engaged in unfair labour practice under the Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act by changing the service conditions unilaterally by changing the weekly off from January 27 to January 26, 1994 without complying with the provisions of Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent union, therefore, defied the notice dated January 5, 1994 requiring the employees to report for work on January 27, 1994 failing which they were warned of reduction of one day's wage from their salary for any absence on that particular date. The union approached the Industrial Court and sought interim orders restraining the petitioner company from deducting from their salary one day's wage as threatened by the petitioner company.

2. The petitioner company appeared before the Industrial Court and contested the complaint by filing its written statement. According to the petitioner company it had not engaged in any unfair labour practice as it had only shifted the weekly off from Thursday to Wednesday which was also a holiday. According to the petitioner company, it was not proper and desirable to keep the factory closed for two consecutive days and, therefore, it had declared Wednesday as a weekly off instead of Thursday. According to the petitioner company, the employees were entitled to get in all six paid holidays in a year under the subsisting settlement. The petitioner company had not changed or had not reduced the number of paid holidays from 6 to 5. It had only shifted the weekly off from Thursday to Wednesday and the employees would have got another day as a holiday in lieu of January 26, 1994. According to the petitioner company, therefore, it was not required to give any notice of change as contemplated u/s 9-A of the I.D. Act as its act was not to effect any change in the service conditions of the workmen as contemplated by the said provision. It was only one isolated adjustment in the paid holidays of the employees, so that the production did not suffer. According to the petitioner company, no prejudice of any nature was caused to the employees as they did not suffer materially or adversely as no wages would have been deducted and no holidays would have been reduced. What the petitioner company had done was a change in the weekly off from Thursday to Wednesday and in lieu of Wednesday, January 26, 1994 which was a paid holiday, another paid holiday would have been given to the employees, thereby keeping intact the number of paid holidays and also the weekly off available to the employees throughout the year. It is an admitted position that the petitioner company had displayed a notice on January 5, 1994 to communicate the said change to the employees. By the said notice, the employees were required to report for duty on Thursday January 27, 1994. It further appears that the respondent union had written a letter to the petitioner company on January 9, 1994 opposing the said change, proposed by the petitioner company.

3. I may mention here itself that as a result of the opposition by the respondent union the employees did not report for work on Thursday and had enjoyed that day as a weekly off instead of a proposed working day as declared by the petitioner company. I may further mention here itself that the petitioner had paid wages to all the employees which were deducted earlier. As far as the employees are concerned they have received thei