Pharma company submits charter of demands to employees union

AURANGABAD: A Chikalthana MIDC-based pharma company has submitted a charter of demands before the employees union, asking for increased productivity. This is something unheard of during the annual renewal of wage agreement.
As a practice, followed by the industrial fraternity, only employees unions submit charter of demands at the time of expiry of the period of preceding wage settlement.
After such demands are raised, the management starts negotiations with the union after which a hike is given.If the management shows its inability to accord salary hike then the union seeks intervention of the conciliation officer (labour office) for arriving at a settlement. However, if both parties fail to arrive at a settlement then such demand is referred to the Industrial Tribunal.
An expert from the industry said that this practise is in accordance to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Concept Pharmaceuticals, established in the year 1988, is one of the oldest pharmaceutical establishments in the region with close to 100 employees and deals in manufacturing of oral solid dosages, injections and syrups production.
It was before the expiry of the agreement, Panther Power Kamgar Saghatna, the employees union submitted its charter of demands asking for direct and indirect benefits to the tune of Rs 48,000 per employee.
Refusing to have a one-sided negotiation, the management decided to raise its demands, which include enhanced productivity and other issues.
Lawyer Yugant Ram Marlapalle told TOI, “Never in the industry has it happened that the management has raised a demand against the union. The demands raised by both the parties got referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.”
Citing that the law does not prevent the company to put forth its charter of demands, he said, “I have raised the demands as the law does not bar me from doing it. The only thing is that it’s unprecedented and unheard of in the entire region, if not the entire state.”
With both parties refusing to budge, they simultaneously approached the conciliation officer, where they failed to come to common terms.
Subsequently, upon request from both parties, the tribunal has referred the matter to a mediator wherein both lawyers representing the management as well as the union will participate in wage negotiations.