BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED versus RAJENDRA KUMAR JAGANNATH KATHAR & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 6 S.C.R. 301 · Decided: 04-04-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 6 S.C.R. 301 
BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED 
v. 
RAJENDRA KUMAR JAGANNATH KATHAR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2159-2160 of 2012) 
APRIL 04, 2013 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention 
A 
B 
of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - ss. 28 and 30(1 )(b) and 
Schedule IV item 6 - Unfair Labour Practice - A/legation by C 
workman - Courts below held that the Company indulged in 
unfair labour practices - Held: Courts below rightly held that 
the Company indulged in unfair labour practice - In the facts 
of the present case, amount of reasonable compensation 
granted by the Industrial Court is modified - However, since o 
the workmen have already withdrawn the compensation 
amount, no steps to be taken by the management to recover 
the differential amount from the workmen. 
The respondents-workmen were employed with the 
appellant-Company. The workmen initiated action against E 
the Company u/s. 28 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade 
Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 
1971, before Industrial Court, seeking declaration that 
there was unfair labour practice under items 5, 6 and 9 
of Schedule IV of the Act. They alleged that though they 
F 
were engaged from the year 1990 to 1997, 1998 and 1999, 
yet every year their services used to be terminated after 
expiry of 7 months. 17 more workmen file separate 
complaint in the year 2003 for providing work to them as 
they were kept outside the factory premises without G 
work. The employees, in addition to their evidence also 
relied on the evidence produced in another complaint 
· filed by the workmen of the appellant-Company (the case 
reached upto Supr~me Court Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. Bhojane 
301 
H 
302 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 6 S.C.R. 
A Gopinath D. and Ors. wherein the supreme Court had held 
that the ~ppellant had indulged in unfair labour practice). 
Industrial Court held that standard of evidence 
produced in the proceedings decided earlier in Bhojane 
8 
case and in the present proceedings were similar and 
from the evidence it is proved that despite the 
continuation of theworkmen for years, they were not 
given status of permanency, and thus appellant-
Company indulged in unfair labour practice under item 6 
of Schedule IV of the Act, and directed payment to the 
C workmen following the Bhojane case. As regards 17 
workmen who had filed complaint in 2003, the Court 
directed to adjust the compensation amount in the salary 
paid to them. 
D 
E 
Management preferred writ petition against the order 
of Industrial Court. Single Judge of High Court confirmed 
the order of Industrial Court. In Writ Appeal, Division 
Bench also upheld the orders of courts below. Hence the 
preser1t appeals. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Unfair labour practice, in its very essence, 
is contrary to just and fair dealing by both the employer 
and the employee. Peace in industrial atmosphere 
F requites the parties to behave and conduct in a just and 
fair manner. The grievance of the aggrieved workmen has 
to be adjudicated under the necessary enactments on the 
bedrock of fairness and just needs. It is to be borne in 
mind that the primary obligation and duty of an industrial 
G forum is to see that peace is sustained between the 
management and the employees in an industry. An unfair 
action by the employer against an individual worker has 
its effect and impact. It could disturb peace and harmony 
in an industrial sphere and similarly, when a workman 
H behaves contrary to the code of conduct and accepted 
BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED v. RAJENDRA KUMAR 
303 
JAGANNATH KATHAR & ORS. 
norms, unhealthy tribulation comes into existence. That 
A 
is why the enactments provide a mechanism for arriving 
at a settlement to see that the growth and progress o.f 
industry is not scuttled by taking recourse to such 
methods which will eventually affect the national growth. 
This being the position behind the philosophy which has s 
to be kept in mind by the employer and the employee, all 
efforts are to be made to avoid any kind of unfair labour 
practice. [Para 18] [318-C-G) 
2. The stray observation by the Industrial Court 
regarding the factum of rotational practice was not C 
correct more so when such a finding was earlier 
recorded and travelled to this Court for being tested and 
was accepted. The ultimate conclusion in this regard by 
the Industrial Court is correct but the said observation, 
was absolutely unwarra

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.