9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Construction and implementation of the agreement dated 31st December, 1966. 2. Validity and enforceability of subsequent agreements dated 9th January, 1971, and 5th August, 1971. 3. Allegation of unfair labor practices by the employer. 4. Jurisdiction and authority of the Industrial Court under Section 30 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. 5. Implied terms in the agreement of 1966 regarding incentive payments beyond 91%. Detailed Analysis: 1. Construction and Implementation of the Agreement Dated 31st December, 1966: The agreement of 31st December, 1966, provided for a revision of incentive benefits payable to workmen, with specific targets and corresponding incentive percentages. The initial base was set at 650 units, and the maximum target was 1250 units, with the maximum production bonus payable being 91%. The Industrial Court was tasked with determining whether this agreement was still in effect and whether the employer had failed to implement it. 2. Validity and Enforceability of Subsequent Agreements Dated 9th January, 1971, and 5th August, 1971: The subsequent agreements made changes to the initial base and target units. The agreement dated 9th January, 1971, raised the initial base to 725 units and the second stage target to 1325 units. The employees challenged these agreements, arguing that they were not binding on those who were not members of the recognized union. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the remedy available to the workmen was the raising of an industrial dispute rather than filing a suit. 3. Allegation of Unfair Labor Practices by the Employer: The employees filed complaints alleging that the employer engaged in unfair labor practices by refusing to implement the 1966 agreement and imposing the terms of the 1971 agreements. The Industrial Court found that the employer had not forced any employees to accept the 1971 agreements and that the payments made in excess of 91% were ex gratia and not in accordance with the 1966 agreement. 4. Jurisdiction and Authority of the Industrial Court Under Section 30 of the Act: The Industrial Court's jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Act requires a finding that the employer engaged in unfair labor practices. The Court had to determine whether the employer was guilty of non-implementation of the 1966 agreement. The Industrial Court did not find any evidence of unfair labor practices, and thus, it lacked jurisdiction to direct the employer to cease and desist from implementing the 1971 agreements. 5. Implied Terms in the Agreement of 1966 Regarding Incentive Payments Beyond 91%: The employees argued that the right to incentive wages beyond 91% should be considered an implied term of the 1966 agreement. The Court rejected this argument, stating that a term can only be implied if it is necessary to give effect to the intention of the parties at the time the agreement was made. The Court found no evidence that the parties intended to include payments beyond 91% as part of the 1966 agreement. Conclusion: The Industrial Court's order was quashed as it lacked jurisdiction to make an anticipatory order based on an apprehension of future unfair labor practices. The Court held that the payments made beyond 91% were ex gratia and not an implied term of the 1966 agreement. The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute, with no order as to costs.
|
