This complaint under section 15 read with section 53 of the IRO has been submitted by Samiullah, General Secretary, Shah Taj Sugar Mills Mazdoor Ittefaq Union, Mandi Bahauddin against S.M.
Ahmad, General Manager, Shah Taj Sugar Mills and 5 others. The accused No.2 was subsequently deleted by the complainant on 28-9-1986. The complainant who is the General Secretary of the union which is CBA for the establishment has stated that the respondents supported the rival union Shah Taj Mills Labour and Staff Union and therefore, they were against their union. The Charter of demands was submitted by the union and a settlement was arrived at on 27-2-1984 at the intervention of the Director Labour Punjab. Under Item 4 of the settlement it was agreed that the production bonus would be given for the crushing season 1983-84 and 1984-85, according to a formula at basic salary. Among other things it was agreed that payment of bonus would be made according to law, custom and rules.
2. It has been submitted that bonus for the year 1983-84 was paid according to the said settlement but in 1984-85 the respondents violated the said settlement and started payment of production bonus which was aimed at harming their union and supporting !He rival union. This action of the respondents was aimed at imposing restrictive conditions in the contract of employment of workers due to their being members of their union as no deduction was ever made in the bonus. It has been submitted that previously the rival union was CBA and it had signed a settlement with the respondents on 19-2-1982 to the effect that payment of bonus would be made on the basic salary of the month and as such certain deductions which were made by the respondents during the crushing season 1981-82 were returned in 1982-83 before referendum so that they may win the referendum.
3. The complainant has stated that they wrote several letters to the respondent No.1 for refund of deductions but the respondent informed them that the deductions were made to achieve good attendance and subsequently they refused to pay the deducted bonus. On 14th of December, 1985 when they met the respondent No.1 in his office where respondent No.2 was also present, both the respondents threatened that they would see how they win the coming referendum. A settlement was signed between the CBA and the respondent No.1 and 3 under which it was agreed that every worker would be issued 22 coupons for meals in a month, 60 coupons for tea and recovery would be made from the wages of the workers at the rate of Rs.30 p.m. In the settlement it was also agreed that every worker would get Chittank meat/beaf, -- Chittank D.1 and two Chittank vegetable with 4 breads, one cup of tea with one Chittank milk. It was also agreed among other things that the canteen would be given on contract after consultation with the CBA.
4. It was submitted that since 5 days poor supply of meals has begun in the canteen and the complainant alongwith President of the union and office secretary met the contractor but the contractor said that the Personnel and Industrial Relation Officer has told him that they cannot continue to pay the rates which were settled previously. Therefore, he was unable to supply the meals as per agreement. They also met the respondent No.1 who said that the management has to cancel the contract. This action of the respondent has promoted the rival union to start propaganda against their union which is aimed at influencing the coming referendum.
5. It has further been alleged that respondents No.1,4 and 5 have stopped providing tea to the office staff from 17-11-1985 which was being provided to them two times daily for the last 17 years. It has been alleged that both the respondents said that they do not want that their union may return as CBA in the coming referendum. It has further been stated that the respondent No.5 who is not a member of the Uniform Committee was called by Mr. Mohammad Afzal, Chief Engineer who is the President of Uniform Committee at the advice of respondent No.1 and the following two points were discussed (i) Shoes for Electrical Staff (ii) Uniform for Line Jamadars of Cane Department. The meeting was fixed again on 19-12-1985 but the Cane Manager intentionally did not attend this meeting. As a result the line Jamadars could not get the uniform in time.
6. The respondent submitted an application dated 27-8-1986 under section 249-A read with section 265-K Cr.P.C. For acquittal of the accused. It was submitted that the complaint was baseless and was moved with mala fide motives with positive design to harass the accused and that the mill management always encouraged healthy trade union activities and always signed extremely generous settlements with the CBA unions who-so-ever it may be and that there were two unions during the last 10 years. That union won the referendum every alternate turn which reflected the normal and enlightened approach of the workers in the mills.
7. The allegation of deduction in the bonus was frivolous as no illegal deductions were made from the Production Bonus of workers and it was duly paid and received on the basis of basic salary actually earned by the workers in a month. In the settlement for the year 1983-84 and 1984-85 production bonus was agreed to be paid as per custom, practice and rules of the company as applicable. The rules were made applicable with the consent of the CBA and that neither any deductions were made nor the settlement was breached nor the workers had any cause of grievance in this respect which is evident from the fact that the workers never sent a grievance notice on this account to the management. He has stated that the production bonus is being disbursed to the workers on the basis of the wages actually earned in a month.
8. As to the complaint regarding canteen it has been submitted that coupon system was agreed in the settlement but the coupons were not saleable nor transferable but at the illegal instigation and directions of the complainant the workers started selling the coupons to the canteen contractor and some outsiders, making them eligible to enter the mills canteen to buy meals. This is a clear breach of the settlement on the part of the complainant. He stated that a new agreement with the canteen contractor has been signed whereunder direct subsidy was granted to the workers and the workers are getting food on subsidised rates. The allegation of supplying poor food was baseless. The learned Counsel denied allegation of discrimi--nation in supply of food.
9. The allegation of stopping tea to the office staff was also baseless. It was submitted that as per settlement it had become necessary to avoid disparity amongst the factory workers and the office staff, because the office staff was now getting 60 tea coupons in ,a month. It was therefore, not an act of unfair labour practice.
10. As regards uniform committee it has been submitted that uniform committee is a standing committee which has the function to deal with technical aspects of the uniforms of the workers.
The respondent No.5 was asked to attend the meeting only to give his technical opinion for the demand relating to his department but he could not attend as he was in the field. He stated that there was no discrimination with line jamadars belonging to one union or the other union.
11. I heard the parties on 21-8-1986 and fixed the case for framing of charge on 28-8-1986 as a prima facie case was made out. On 26-8-19.16 respondent No.1 submitted that respondent No.2 had left the job since March, 1986 and No.3 had resigned. The respondent No.4 was absent while respondent No.5 was in Indonesia. The charge therefore, could not be framed and the case was fixed on 27-9-1986 but since 27-9-1986 was Saturday, the case was heard on 28-9-1986. On that date the complainant supplied addresses of accused No.2 and 3 and an application under section 249-A Cr.P.C. For acquittal of the accused was also presented on that day.
12. The l6arned representative for the complainant argued that the application under section 249- A Cr.P.C. Was premature and that this case had already been argued and the case was fixed for framing of charge. He stated that this remedy was not available to the accused as he could file an appeal a/s 22-D or file a writ under Article 199. He stated that the case required evidence as the accused have changed the terms and conditions of service of the workers. He referred to all the allegations made in the complaint and stated that the management has committed acts of unfair labour practice.
13. I find that the complaint relates to breach of settlement for which NIRC is not. The proper forum.
The learned Counsel for the respondents has stated that there has been no breach of settlement as the bonus is being paid in accordance with the rules framed by the company in consultation with the CBA. These rules are being applied to all the members of both the unions and there is no discrimination whatsoever. Regarding issue of coupons the learned Counsel for the respondents has explained that the workers at the instigation of the complainant started selling the coupons to the contractor and the outsiders which was a breach of the settlement arrived at between the union and management. This is also not a act of unfair labour practice on the part of the accused.
Poor supply of meals could be discussed by the union with the management and proper demand could be raised in this connection. In any case this cannot be termed as an act of unfair labour practice. Similarly providing tea and uniform can also not be stretched to fall under the unfair labour practice.
14. In view of the above discussions I find that the complainant has failed to make out any case of unfair labour practice, I, therefore, dismiss the complaint and acquit the accused.
A.A. 100/Lb.I.R.C. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.