SIEMENS LTD. & ANOTHER versus SIEMENS EMPLOYEES UNION & ANOTHER

Citation: [2011] 15 S.C.R. 1157 · Decided: 12-10-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1157 
SIEMENS LTD. & ANOTHER 
v. 
SIEMENS EMPLOYEES UNION & ANOTHER 
(CIVIL APPEAL N0.8607 OF 2011) 
OCTOBER 12, 2011 
[D.K. JAIN AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY,. JJ.] 
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and 
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - ss.26, 27, 
A 
B 
28 rlw s.30(2) and Schedule IV, item no. 9 - Unfair Labour C 
Practice - Appellant-company issued notification dated 3rd 
May, 2007 for workmen employed in its factory, whereby 
applications were invited to appear for a selection process to 
undergo a two year long period as an 'Officer Trainee' - The 
notification stated that after successful completion of the said 
0 
two years, the trainees were to be designated as 'Junior 
Executive Officers' - Grievance of respondent-trade union that 
though the designation of 'Junior Executive Officer' was that 
of an officer belonging to the management cadre, in fact the 
job description of a Junior Executive Officer was same as that 
of a workman, with little additional duties; that such a move 
E 
was, in effect an alteration in the conditions of service of the 
workmen and resulted in reduction in the job opportunities for 
workers - Plea of respondent- trade union that the change 
sought to be brought about by the appellant-company by its 
said notification was in violation of clause 7 of the industrial 
F 
agreemenVsett/ement entered into between itself and the 
appellant-company in 1982 and that the appellant-company 
had resorted to unfair labour practice under item No.9 of 
Schedule IV of the Act - Labour Court held against the 
appellant-company - Order upheld by High Court - On 
G 
appeal, held: While considering clause 7 of the said 
settlement the Courts below did not taken into consideration 
clause 12 - Clause 7 contained a prohibition against the 
employees or officers or members of the staff of the appellant-
1157 
H 
1158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A company from doing normal production work - But that 
cannot be read in such a manner as to nullify the purport of 
clause 12 which reseNed promotional employment potential 
of existing workmen - So in the instant case if by way of 
rearrangement of work, the management of appellant-
s company gave promotional opportunity to the existing workers 
that did not bring about any violation of clause 7 of the said 
settlement rather such a rearrangement of work was in terms 
of clause 12 - What was restricted under clause 7 was asking 
the officers to do the normal production work - There was no 
blanket ban in asking the officers from doing any production 
C work - Both clause 7 and clause 12 of the said settlement 
must be reasonably and harmoniously construed to make it 
workable with the evolving work culture of the appellant-
company in facing new challenges in the emerging economic 
order which had changed considerably from 1982 - Further, 
D both Labour Court and the High court failed to take into 
consideration that the workers voluntarily applied for the 
promotion scheme pursuant to its introduction - Besides, 
legally also the management of the company was not 
prevented from rearranging its business in the manner it . 
E considered it best, if in the process it did not indulge in 
victimization - In the instant case no malafide was alleged 
against the appellant-company -
No allegation of 
victimization was made by the respondent-union in its 
complaint - In the given situation, it cannot be said that by 
F introducing the scheme of promotion, to which the workers 
overwhelmingly responded on their own, the management 
indulged in unfair labour practice - In fact if the order of the 
High Court is upheld, the same will go against the interest of 
' 
erstwhile workmen of appellant-company who had responded 
to the scheme of promotion - Order of the High Court set 
G aside - However, it is made clear that in implementing the 
scheme the management of appellant-company would not 
bring about any retrenchment of the workmen nor any 
workmen be rendered surplus in any way. 
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and 
H Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - s.26 and 
SIEMENS LTD. & ANR. v. SIEMENS EMPLOYEES 1159 
UNION &ANR. 
27 and Schedule II, Ill and IV - Unfair Labour Practice -
A 
Difference between provisions relating to unfair labour 
practices in the Maharashtra Act a[Jd those in Central Act i.e. 
Industrial Disputes Act - Held: The Industrial Disputes Act 
prohibits an employer 

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