Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(B) Another Judgment is 1992(I) Bom.C.R. 286 Dyes and Chemical Workers Union v. Asian Chemicals Works and Ors. The Single Judge of this court relying upon the above referred judgment reported in 1983 Mh.L.J. 618 observed that;

"Mr. Justice Barucha had thus ruled that where there was no recognised union, an employee himself can appear or act in a proceeding relating to unfair labour practices covered by Items 2 & 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act which does not mean that an unrecognised union cannot act or appear in such a proceeding. Mr. Justice Bharucha had categorically ruled that an unrecognised union can represent an employee in such a proceeding. I am in respectful agreement with the view held by Mr. Bharucha and in that view of the matter, the learned Member of the Industrial Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner - union could not have filed a complaint of unfair labour practice covered by Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act and could not have represented the workman in the Industrial Court under Section 21 of the MRTU & PULP Act."

The Division Bench in paragraph 33 has observed that:

"Having given our fullest consideration to this submission, we are of view that Sections 20 & 22 which confer rights on recognised and unrecognised union, respectively, are not determinative of the rights of Unions to appear in complaints relating to unfair labour practices. What is determinative as of the right to appear is Section 21(1) of the MRTU & PULP Act, read with Section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act, which have the following effect:-
(a) That any Union or any employee or Investigating Officer may file a complaint for any unfair labour practice against an employer by virtue of Section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act.

Page 263

(b) Where the unfair labour practice complained of is in regard to items 2 & 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, the same can only be prosecuted by a recognised union by virtue of Section 21(1) of the MRTU & PULP Act.

In paragraph 42, the Court has further observed that:

"We, therefore, hold that it is not the exclusive right of a recognised Union to institute and prosecute a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act in respect of an industry governed by the I.D. Act in relation to unfair labour practices other than those specified in items 2 & 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. We, therefore, uphold the judgment of the learned Single Judge in this regard."

25. Thus, these three supreme Court cases lay down the guiding principle to decide the present case. It is required to be stated that two of the aforesaid cases, namely, 1986 I LLJ 197, H.D. Sing's case and - the case of Dharwad Distt. PWD Literata Daily Wage Employees Association and Ors. v. State of Karnataka are the cases under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 while the case of the Chief Conservator of Forests v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare is under the Industrial Disputes Act read with the MRTU & PULP Act, under which we are presently considering the case of the Corporation. On going through these cases it will be evident that the Apex Court has found that whenever there daily wage earner is kept for years together as daily wage earner, the Apex Court has come forward to regularise the services of them, as has been done in . Apart from that, now we have a statutory provision under the MRTU & PULP Act by way of item 6, declaring that if the employer employs the employees as badlis, casuals Page 275 or temporaries and continues them as such for years together with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees, it is unfair labour practice.