Chapter: 2.4.11 Failure to implement agreement or award in the M.R.T.U.P.U.L.P.

Failure to implement agreement or award

• In Case

Anm Wankhede
V
Executive Engineer, Church Gate Erection
1992 I CLR 236 (Bonz. HC).

• The Unfair Labour Practice being under item 9 of Sch. IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 it was seen that, the question of general importance raised in these petitions is as to whether non-compliance of provisions of law could be a failure to implement an agreement, so as to constitute an unfair labour practice under item 9 of Sch. IV.
• The High Court observed that, 'The question of general importance raised in these petitions is as to whether non compliance of provisions of law could be a failure on the part of an employer to implement an agreement, so as to constitute unfair_ labour practice as envisaged by item 9 of Sch. IV of the Act:
• The complaint of the petitioners is that their termination effected in contravention of Sec. 25-F and 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act;_, is an unfair laboul;. practice under item 9 of Sch. IV of the Act.' _'l Referring to the judgment in the case of S. G. Chemicals 1986 I CLR 360, it is observed as, 'It is thus clear that closing down of a Churchgate Division in violation of Sec. 25-0_ held' to' be illegal. Closing down of Division, however was not held to be unfair labour practice as tried to suggest: Non 'payment of salary in accordance with the settlement dated 1-2-79 alone is held to be unfair labour practice under Act.
• The term 'agreement' as engaged in item 9 of Sch. IV has definite reference to the agreements arrived at.
• Between the parties, in relation to a change under B. LR. Act '1946 or Industrial Disputes Act' 1947.

These agreements are binding on me parties.
• Failure to implement such agreement would therefore be an unfair labour practice under the entry.