1996 Supreme(SC) 1446

1997(1) Supreme 211
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I., S.B. Majmudar and B.N. Kirpal, JJ.
K.C.P. Limited -Appellant
versus
Presiding Officer & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11944 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12508 of 1995)
Decided on 12-9-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : N.B. Shetye, Sr. Advocate, V. Balaji, A.T.M. Sampath, Advocates.
For the Respondents : V.G. Pragasam, M.A. Krishnamoorthy and M.A. Chinnasamy, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
When the terms of the settlement arrived at in the industrial dispute raised by the union u/s 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot be considered to be in any way ex-facie, unjust or unfair, the said settlement must be held binding on all the parties to the settlement.

Headnote:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 2(k)-Industrial dispute-Dispute raised by union on behalf of 29 workmen who were dismissed from service by appellant company-Settlement arrived at by union would be binding to parties to agreement-When settlement was not unfair or unjust-Out of 29 workmen, 17 workmen agreed and remaining 12 did not accept this settlement-Whether these 12 workmen were entitled to insist that their dispute should be adjudicated on merits by Labour Court ?-(No)-Settlement must be held to be binding on these contesting workmen also.

       Held that before the labour Court the only argument put forward on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 14 was that they were not parties to the settlement and therefore, it was not binding on them. Once it is kept in view that the entire industrial dispute was raised by respondent No. 2 union on behalf of all the 29 dismissed workmen and as it was not an industrial dispute covered by Section 2A whereunder individual dismissed workman could come in the arena of contest, it could not be held, as wrongly assumed by the Labour Court that this settlement was not entered into under Section 18(1) of the Act by these dissenting workmen when the respondent - union did represent them from beginning to end and is still representing them as they are members of the union even at present. (Para 21)

       Further held : that the present controversy has arisen after the coming into operation of Section 2-A but as noted earlier the industrial dispute raised for 29 dismissed workmen was raised by the union-respondent no. 2 under Section 2(k) of the Act and there was no reference under Section 2-A of the Act. (Para 22)

       About 500 workmen had gone on strike and that had resulted in the lock-out by the appellant company and ultimately disciplinary action was initiated against 29 workmen who had indulged into various acts of misconduct. It is for these 29 workmen who were ultimately dismissed from service that the respondent-union had raised a dispute under Section 2(k) of the Act on their behalf. Earlier the remaining workmen had gone on strike for nearly 5 months. Ultimately, the strike was withdrawn; lock-out was lifted and a broad understanding was reached between the appellant company and the workmen represented by their union whereby it was agreed that 29 workmen, who were dismissed, would be either given Rs.75,000/- as compensation of reinstatement with continuity of service without back wages and the concerned workmen should express apology for mis-conduct and also assure good conduct in future. Out of 29 workmen for whom the industrial dispute was raised 17 workmen agreed and accepted this settlement and joined the service. Remaining 12 workmen (respondent Nos. 3 to 14) have not agreed to the said settlement. It is under these circumstances that the settlement arrived at by the union on behalf of all of them has to be scrutinised. (Paras 26 & 27)

       In our view there was nothing unreasonable or unfair in these terms of settlement. The relief of reinstatement without back wages could not be said to be unreasonable as for nearly 12 months all the other workmen lost their back wages only because they supported the cause of these 29 colleagues of theirs and hence there was no reason why the workmen who indulged in the acts of misconduct and who were also to be taken in service should not lose their wages for 12 months. Relief of reinstatement was made available to respondents 3 to 14 on the same line as it was made available to their 17 remaining colleagues who were covered by the very same settlement and who accepted the relief of settlement without back wages or a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 75,000/- and other monetary benefits in lieu of that. In our view such a package deal entered into by respondent no. 2 in the best interest of these workmen could not be said to be unfair or unjust from any angle. On the contrary. If the back wages were given to them, then the remaining workmen against whom there was no disciplinary action or any alleged misconduct and who had also lost wages for 12 months only because they were in sympathy with these 29 dismissed workmen would have stood discriminated against. Consequently, it is not possible to agree with the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 14 that the said settlement was in any way unfair or unjust. Once this conclusion is reached it is obvious that the entire industrial dispute should have been disposed of in the light of this settlement and an award in terms of the settlement should have been passed by the first respondent-court in the case of respondents 3 to 14 also. (Para 27)