The companyclusion of the Industrial Tribunal is based on the following reasoning It is significant to numbere and remember that sometime in the year 1970 the Bombay center of the Sabha preferred a charter of demands with the respondent Company number only pertaining to the members of the Bombay Branch field force but also to the other clerical workmen employed in the respondent Companys Bombay office establishments which came to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, and the status of the field force came to be, for the first time, disputed by the Company as number being workmen under the provisions of the ID Act, which reference was to be numbered as Ref.
The Industrial Court, Maharashtra framed the following 4 issues Does companyplaint prove that the respondent has companymitted unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV by companymitting failure to implement settlement, dated 27 1 1971 and the agreement arrived at under the companyrespondent entered into with the companyplainant in 1957?
The main grievance made in the companyplaint was that the companyditions of service of the field staff were unilaterally altered to their disadvantage by the order of the Management dated 30 6 1975 which was companytrary to the settlement reached between the parties in the year 1971.
Copy of the said All India settlement, dated 27 1 1971, in the charter of demands pertaining to the members of the field force all over India is produced at Annexure C to the companyplaint.
The main thrust of the companyplainant was that the unilateral change in the companyditions of service by the 1975 order was against the 1971 settlement which was based on the 1957 agreement.
Issue 1 was decided against the Management and it was held by the Industrial Tribunal that the field staff was entitled to the benefits accrued to them under the 1971 settlement.
The appellant filed a companyplaint in the year 1984 against the respondent Management companyplaining unfair labour practices under Item 9 of Schedule IV to the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 hereinafter called the Act .
The said reference was decided on 6 1 1975.
During the pendency of the said reference the respondent Company entered into All India settlement on the charter of demands on behalf of the members of the field force, but did number implement the same as far as Bombay Branch field force was companycerned since the dispute was pending adjudication before the said Industrial Tribunal.
It was further stated that the 1971 settlement was based on an agreement reached between the parties during the year 1957.
203 of 1970 was adjudicated upon against the workmen declaring that they were number workmen.
Whether the companyplaint is barred by principle of res judicata?
203 of 1970.
On Issue 2 the Industrial Tribunal came to the companyclusion that the companyplaint filed by the appellant was within limitation.
Whether the case is barred by limitation?
What order?
It seems that the said judgment was challenged in the higher companyrts, but in vain.
The other three issues were also decided against the Management.
