Unfair labour practice relief needs a proved violation; past higher incentive payments did not create an implied settlement term.

A cease-and-desist direction under the Maharashtra unfair labour practices law requires a proved finding of an unfair labour practice; an anticipatory restraint based only on apprehension is not supported, and no coercion or attempted enforcement was shown. The court also held that repeated higher incentive payments did not by themselves create an implied term in the earlier settlement, because implication requires necessity for efficacy and clear contractual intention. As the earlier agreement contained no express right beyond 91% and the later payments arose under a subsequent settlement, no implied entitlement was established. The impugned order was quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Industrial Court could direct the employer to cease and desist from implementing the later settlements without a finding that an unfair labour practice had been committed. (ii) Whether the repeated payment of incentive over 91% under the earlier settlement created an implied term entitling the workmen to such payment under that settlement.

Issue (i): Whether the Industrial Court could direct the employer to cease and desist from implementing the later settlements without a finding that an unfair labour practice had been committed.

Analysis: The power under Section 30 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 depends on a finding that the person complained against has engaged in, or is engaging in, an unfair labour practice. The Industrial Court did not record such a finding and proceeded instead on an apprehension that the employer might pressure workmen to accept the later settlements. Section 32 could not support an anticipatory injunction of that kind when the pleaded unfair labour practice itself had not been established. The evidence of the workmen also did not show any coercion or attempted enforcement against them.

Conclusion: The order of the Industrial Court on this issue was without jurisdiction and could not stand.

Issue (ii): Whether the repeated payment of incentive over 91% under the earlier settlement created an implied term entitling the workmen to such payment under that settlement.

Analysis: An implied term can be read into a contract only when it is necessary to give efficacy to the agreement and when the intention of the parties at the time of contracting clearly supports such implication. The earlier settlement contained no express provision for incentive beyond 91%, and the later payments were made only under the subsequent settlement. Past payments by themselves did not justify importing a new term into the earlier consensual agreement. The Industrial Court's characterization of the higher payment as ex gratia was therefore not shown to be erroneous.

Conclusion: No implied term arose under the 1966 agreement, and the claim to incentive beyond 91% failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed because the foundational finding of unfair labour practice was absent and the claimed right to additional incentive under the earlier settlement was not established.

Ratio Decidendi: A cease and desist order under the unfair labour practices law can be made only after a proved unfair labour practice is found, and a term cannot be implied into a settlement merely because a similar benefit was later granted on some occasions.

---