Case: Blue Star Limited Vs. Blue Star Workers' Union &amp; Others

2.Respondent No. 1, Blue Star Workers Union, filed a complaint against the petitioner, itsPersonal, and its Manager ACR Sales, complaining unfair labour practice under section 28(1) read with Item 9 of Schedule IV and Item 4(a) of Schedule II of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short "the Act"), stating therein that the petitioner was not paying salary to Shri N. Vasudevan and that the petitioner violated the existing settlement dated November 1, 1985.3.The petitioner appointed Shri Vasudevan as a stenographer from October 26, 1964 vide its appointment letter of the same date on the terms and conditions mentioned therein, inter alia, that his appointment was otherwise subject to the standard rules and regulations of the company with regard to leave, Provident Fund, exclusive employment while serving the company. He accepted the same and joined the service. He was elected as General Secretary of the 1st respondent and thereafter he become itsin the year 1981, after he was elected as General Secretary of the All India Blue Star Employees Federation. He was allowed to solely do the union work by the company since 1983. Since then he was not assigned any company work. He has been carrying on union activities during office working hours. Shri R.M. Nadkarni, Manager, ACR Sales, of the petitioner company, was arraigned as respondent No. 2 in the original complaint. He issued an official communication dated October 31, 1989 to Shri Vasudevan stating that the latter had refused to take up the companys sales work despite repeated instructions in that behalf and that in case he failed to take up the work, the company will have no alternative but take such action as deemed fit and to stop payment of salary/wages with effect from October 25, 1989. The communication reads, you had a meeting with the undersigned and Mr. A.K. Nandi and you were instructed to take up the sales work from the undersigned, since there was plenty of backlog of quotations and correspondence. You categorically refused to take up any work from the undersigned and said that you had no time to do anything else other than the union activities.You are once again instructed to start work of the dept. Please note in case you do not start work immediately, we will have no alternative but to take such action as we deem fit.In the meantime since you have decided to keep yourself idle, you will not be paid salary/wages from October 25, 1989 onwards, which please note."This communication furnished the cause of action to the 1st respondent to file the complaint alleging unfair labour practice. The communication is alleged to have been issued in violation of the settlement dated November 1, 1985 under which a practice is alleged to have come into existence, namely that Shri Vasudevan could not be assigned any company work and he has to be allowed to do union work during office working hours.4.The petitioner denied that the settlement dated November 1, 1985 envisages what is alleged. It also denied that any practice had come into existence under which an employee can engage himself in union activities to the detriment of the companys work.5.The Industrial Court, on the evidence brought on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had committed unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act and it directed the petitioner to withdraw the letter dated October 31, 1989 and to allow Shri Vasudevan to continue to do the union work while on duty and to receive wages/salaries at the rates stipulated under the Agreement dated November 1, 1985.6.The Industrial Court relied upon the oral evidence and the Agreement dated November 1, 1985 to come to the conclusion that the petitioner had committed unfair labour practice as alleged. It was not disputed by the 1st respondent that there was no document on record to establish that Shri Vasudevan was entitled to carry on union work during companys working hours and he was to be treated on duty to entitle him to claim full wages as permissible to other employees. However, the Industrial Court concluded that the concession given by the petitioner has resulted in an implied agreement between the petitioner and the 1st respondent entitling Shri Vasudevan to all the wages permissible to the other regular employees.

Reasoning: d observations have to be examined in the context in which they were made. The Apex Court was laying down the distinction between commercial and industrial arbitrations and it was in that context that the above observations were made. The Apex Courts observations have to be read in the context of the dispute beforelearned Counsel also relied on the decision in Workmen, Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., 1984 Lab.I.C. 1573, more particularly the observations in para 11 to the following..... ..... the expression `terms of conditions of employment would ordinarily include not only the contractual terms and conditions but those terms which are understood and applied by the parties in practice or habitually or by common consent without ever being incorporated in the contract."These observations were made in the context that promotion is connected with the terms of conditions of employment. This judgment also has no bearing to the facts of the instantobservations were made in the context that promotion is connected with the terms of conditions of employment. This judgment also has no bearing to the facts of the instantd observations have to be examined in the context in which they were made. The Apex Court was laying down the distinction between commercial and industrial arbitrations and it was in that context that the above observations were made. The Apex Courts observations have to be read in the context of the dispute beforeit.