The main legal point established is that termination for joining a union constitutes unfair labour practices, and accepting settlement amounts does not preclude employees from raising unfair labour practice grievances.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. The challenge in this petition is to a judgment and order dated 10th December, 2021 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court at Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No. 226 of 2016 whereby the complaint preferred by the petitioners/complainants alleging unfair labour practices under Item 1(a) of Schedule II and Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (the Act, 1971) came to be dismissed.

3. Respondent No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in hotel and hospitality business. Respondent No. 2 is the Director of respondent No. 1. The petitioners were in the employment of respondents holding different positions, for a number of years.

4. The petitioners alleged that as the respondents were not providing the wages and benefits as per the entitlement of the petitioners, the petitioners joined Bharat Karmachari Union, a registered trade union (“the union”). An intimation was sent to the respondents by the said union on 19th October, 2015 about the petitioners having joined the said union. A charter of demand on behalf of the petitioners was sent to the respondent No. 1 on 3rd November, 2015.

5. The respondents refused to consider the charter of demands. Instead, the respondents threatened to close down the establishment if the petitioners did not tender resignation of the membership of the union. On 10th December, 2015 a meeting was held between the respondent No. 2 and the representative of the employees. In the said meeting, respondent No. 2 assured not to terminate any of the employees. Minutes of meeting were recorded.

6. In breach of the settlement arrived at between the parties, according to the petitioners, the respondent No. 2 coerced the individual employees to put signature on blank papers and accept the cheques for the varying amounts, without disclosing the computation and the purpose for which those cheques were issued. The respondents closed the establishment on 1st January, 2016 and restrained the petitioners from entering into the hotel premises. The petitioners were made to visit Shri T.J. Setpal, the labour law consultant of the respondents, and accept the certificates of experience wherein it was mentioned that the services of the petitioners were terminated for joining Bharat Karmachari Union. Thus, the petitioners filed a complaint alleging unfair labour practices under Item 1(a) of Schedule II and Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act, 1971.

7. The respondents resisted the complaint. It was contended that the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the alleged unfair labour practice was of termination of the services of the petitioners, which would fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labour Court. Tenability of the complaint was also assailed on the ground that the petitioners have not disclosed the exact date of the alleged unfair labour practice indulged in by the respondents and therefore the complaint was barred by limitation. On merits, the respondents contended that all the petitioners had accepted the compensation pursuant to the settlement arrived at between the parties, voluntarily. The petitioners and respondents had mutually and amicably settled the entire dispute and pursuant thereto, the petitioners had resigned and accepted various amounts in full and final settlement of their claims. It was stated that the said agreement amounted to settlement within the meaning of section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In substance, according to the respondents, the acts and conduct attributed to the respondents did not amount to unfair labour practice either under Item 1(a) of Schedule II or Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act, 1971.

8. The learned Member, Industrial Court after appraisal of the pleadings and evidence