Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (4.45 seconds)
Documents citing Vamen Maruty Gharat And Ors. vs M.S. Apte And Ors. on 1 October, 1987

Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh vs G.K.W. Ltd. And Ors. on 18 March, 1998

In the case of Vaman Maruty Gharat and Ors. v. M.S. Apte & Co., (1989-1-LLJ-134) the issue before the single Judge of this Court was whether the refusal of the respondent to give work to its employees on the ground that the latter are not signing the undertaking is an illegal lock-out. It was held that there was nothing on record to show that there were acts of violence and acts of indiscipline which made the respondent to insist upon the undertaking sought for. In that case the learned single Judge observed that refusal of respondents to give work to its employees on the ground that latter did not give undertaking of the type insisted upon, the respondent indulged in lock-out which lock-out was not in accordance with the law and, therefore, was illegal.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - F I Rebello - Full Document

Metal Box India Limited vs Association Of Engineering Workers ... on 14 June, 2001

In Gharat's case (supra), both Justice P.B. SAWANT and Justice R. A.JAHAGIRDAR took the view that despite the fact that the Labour Court had declared the strike illegal, the employer was not justified in demanding an admission on the part of the workmen. In the present case, the undertaking which was sought was an admission that the workmen had struck work and the Company suspended operations in response to their having struck work. This was in my view, impermissible because it precluded the workmen from agitating their claims and rights before a Court of competent jurisdiction. Secondly, what the undertaking required was that the workmen should admit that the period during which the Company had suspended its operations, shall be on a no-work- no-pay basis. This, it must be noted, was not merely between the period February 4, 1994 and February 7, 1994, but continued so long as the Company chose to suspend its operations. The workmen were thus required to agree to a waiver of their right to receive wages during the period during which the company suspended its operations. Thirdly, the undertaking is equally flawed because Clause (e) of the undertaking required that in the event that the colleagues of the workman furnishing the undertaking did not work on the line, the workman himself would be treated as on "no-work-no-pay" basis. Thus, irrespective of whether or not the workman concerned was ready and willing to offer himself for work, he would be denied wages merely because his colleagues had not worked. The undertaking required the workman to state that he was not engaged in illegal or indisciplined activities and that he would not band together with a group of workmen. These objections to the undertaking must be considered with reference to the fact that the Company stated in its notice dated February 8, 1994 that the management would be willing to consider lifting the suspension of operations if at least 75% of the work force furnished an undertaking in the prescribed format. In the evidence which was adduced before the Industrial Court, the witness for the Company, Shri K.B. Gaokar, admitted that the Company had received undertakings from about 100 workers of the Deonar unit in terms of the appeal which had been made to the workers. Now it is common ground that even these 100 workers were not permitted to report for work. The Company's decision was that at least 75% of the work force must sign the undertaking and that it is thereafter that the Company would consider whether to recommence operations. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Company sought to justify this on the ground that the Company would require the key personnel in the Unit to be present in order to start operations. There is no merit in this contention since no case whatsoever is made out in the evidence adduced to the effect that it was not possible for the Company to commence operations until 75% of the work force reports for work. Moreover, as already noticed, the Company had merely stated that it would "consider" restarting operations if 75% of the work force submitted an undertaking. Apart from this, it would be material to note that the witness on behalf of the Union (Jayendranath J. Sheth), expressly deposed that the workers were ready to give an undertaking to the effect that they will give normal production and would maintain peace and harmony in the Company. Mr. Sheth stated that the Union had informed the Company that the workmen were ready to give such an undertaking and had stated so before the Labour Commissioner in the conciliation proceedings. The Company has, however not accepted such an undertaking by contending that it would abide by the order that may be passed by the Court in the pending proceedings. During the course of cross-examination, the Company's witnesses Mr. K.B. Gaokar and Mr. A.K. Bannerji were expressly asked whether the workmen had agreed to furnish a normal undertaking in regard to production and maintenance of discipline before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour but, the two witnesses were unable to deny this suggestion and stated that they had no knowledge of whether the workmen had agreed to furnish such an undertaking. In fact, Mr. Gaokar in response to a question which was posed to him stated in para 14 of his cross-examination that he was unable to state at present whether the Company would be ready to withdraw the suspension of operations even if the workers were ready to give an undertaking to maintain discipline and to give normal production.
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 2 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Maharashtra General Kamgar Union vs Estrella Batteries Ltd. And Ors. on 19 September, 2003

In Vaman Maruty Gharat's (supra) case, on account of difference of opinion between the members of Bench, the matter was placed for consideration before the 3rd Judge and Shri R.A. Jahagirdar, J., while dealing with the matter while agreeing with the view expressed by Shri P.B. Sawant, J. had placed reliance in the decision of the Division Bench in S.R. Samant's case and had taken note of the clear finding of the Division Bench in that regard to the effect that, "this must, however, be borne in mind that the dividing line between justified and unjustified insistence on such bond is very thin. The Court has to scrupulously guard against the danger of this being abused making it a just a pretext for coercing workmen to give up their just struggle with legitimate means. "Further, while agreeing with the views expressed by Justice Sawant, it was held that if the undertaking required from the employee is merely to say that he was calling of the strike which had to be held to be illegal, one would not be able to complain about the same but if it includes the confession on the part of the employee regarding the illegality of the strike or any violent acts on the part of the employees then it may not be permissible to insist upon such undertaking.
Bombay High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - R M Khandeparkar - Full Document

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs Workmen Employed In The Refinery ... on 6 October, 2000

In the case of Vamen Maruty Gharat (supra), the Issue before the Division Bench of our High Court was whether the insistence by Company on admission by workmen that the strike was illegal as a condition precedent to their being allowed to resume their duties was held to be an illegal and improper action on the part of the Company and therefore, it was held to be a lock out within the meaning of Section 3(24) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1947. In the present case, the undertaking insisted by the management was totally different and was only a very formal and innocuous undertaking that after entering the refinery the workman would do his normal work in a disciplined manner. There was no insistence by the management on the workmen that they should admit that they were on an illegal strike. From the facts and circumstances in that case, the Division bench had taken that view which has no application in the present case.
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 6 - R J Kochar - Full Document

M/S. Haldyn Glass Limited vs Maharashtra General on 20 February, 2014

DSS wp 972.08-G condition for reporting the duties shall have to be held to be an unlawful and high handed act, to borrow the words from the case of Vamen Gharat (supra). The evidence on record very clearly establishes and it is the case of the employer that such of the workmen who signed the undertaking of the goods conduct were permitted to report for duties and only handful of workmen (those involved in the present case) declined to give an undertaking were proceed with but the employer in disciplinary jurisdiction. Neither in the proceedings before the Enquiry Officer, nor in the proceedings before the Labour Court has any material been placed on record that the workmen indulged in violence or subversive activities. In fact, the entire case of the employer is that they were not permitted to resume duties because they declined to give an undertaking. In these circumstances, the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the employer was justified in declining work to the workers because the workers failed to submit undertaking of good conduct is unsustainable being perverse.
Bombay High Court Cites 61 - Cited by 0 - M S Sonak - Full Document

M/S. Haldyn Glass Limited vs Maharashtra General on 20 February, 2014

DSS wp 972.08-G condition for reporting the duties shall have to be held to be an unlawful and high handed act, to borrow the words from the case of Vamen Gharat (supra). The evidence on record very clearly establishes and it is the case of the employer that such of the workmen who signed the undertaking of the goods conduct were permitted to report for duties and only handful of workmen (those involved in the present case) declined to give an undertaking were proceed with but the employer in disciplinary jurisdiction. Neither in the proceedings before the Enquiry Officer, nor in the proceedings before the Labour Court has any material been placed on record that the workmen indulged in violence or subversive activities. In fact, the entire case of the employer is that they were not permitted to resume duties because they declined to give an undertaking. In these circumstances, the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the employer was justified in declining work to the workers because the workers failed to submit undertaking of good conduct is unsustainable being perverse.
Bombay High Court Cites 61 - Cited by 0 - M S Sonak - Full Document

Maruti Udyog Employees Union (Regd.) vs State Of Haryana on 15 December, 2000

42. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied on the case of Vaman Maruty Gharal and others v. M.S. Apte and others, 1995(70) F.L.R. 30. In the said case, it has been held by the Bombay High Court that the insistence by company on admission by workmen that the strike was illegal as a condition precedent, to their being allowed to resume their duty was held to be illegal and improper. In the present case, no such admissioi, is asked for.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1