SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1981 Supreme(SC) 453

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.D. KOSHAL, V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.
M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd., Appellant
Versus
Their Workmen, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1484 of 1971, D/-16-10-1981.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Bhandare and Dr. Y. S. Chitale Sr. Advocate with M/s. O. C. Mathur, K. J. John and J. S. Sinha, Advocates with them for Appellant; M/s. Jitendra Sharma and Janardan Sharma, Advocates (for No.1) and Mr. K. Rajendra Choudhary, Advocate (for No.2), for Respondents.

Advocates:
J.S.SINHA, JANARDAN SHARMA, JITENDRA SHARMA, K.J.JOHN, K.RAJENDRA CHAUDHARY, M.C.BHANDARE, O.C.MATHUR, Y.S.Chitale

Headnote:

Industrial Disputes Act - Section 10 (1) – Workmen – Amalgamation - Company came into existence under an order passed by the High Court of Maharashtra directing amalgamation of two, pre-existing concerns, one having the same name as the Company and another known as the Invest Machine Tools and Engineering Company - Being dissatisfied with attitude of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Poona who acted as the Conciliation Officer, the Telco Union approached the State Government who made the reference culminating in the impugned award - Held, There is no quarrel with the argument addressed to us on behalf of the workers that mere acquiescence in a settlement or its acceptance by a worker would not make him a party to the settlement for the purpose of S. 18 of the Act (vide Jhagrakhan Collieries (P.) Ltd. v. G. C. Agarwal, (1975) 2 SCR 873. It is further unquestionable that a minority union of workers may raise an industrial dispute even if another union which consists of the majority of them enters into a settlement with the employer (vide Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Its Workmen, (1978) 3 SCR 535. But then here the company is not raising a plea that the 564 workers became parties to the settlement by reason of their acquiescence in or acceptance of a settlement already arrived at or a plea that the reference is not maintainable because the Telco Union represents only a minority of workers - Appeal allowed.

Judgment

KOSHAL, J. :- This is an appeal by special leave against an award dated 15th June, 1971 (30-4-1971) of the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra (the Tribunal, for short), deciding a reference made to it under Cl. (d) of sub-section. (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called the Act) requiring adjudication of demands raised by the workmen of the Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited (Machine Tools Division), Chinchwad (hereinafter referred to as the Company).

2. The facts leading to this appeal may be briefly set out. The Company came into existence under an order passed by the High Court of Maharashtra on the 27th June, 1966 directing amalgamation of two, pre-existing concerns, one having the same name as the Company and another known as the Invest Machine Tools and Engineering Company. After the amalgamation a section of a workers of the Company formed a union known as Telco Kamgar Union (for short, the Telco Union) which was registered as such on the 2nd June, 1967, but which, even before that, submitted a charter of demand to the Company on the 1st May, 1967. Sub-sequently other workers of the Company established another union named the Telco Kamgar Sanghatana (hereinafter called the Sanghatana) which presented another set of demands to the Company on the 29th Sept, 1967. A settlement was reached in conciliation proceedings in relation to the demands last mentioned in the 3rd Oct., 1967. Being dissatisfied with the attitude of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Poona who acted as the Conciliation Officer, the Telco Union approached the State Government who made the reference culminating in the impugned award.

3. The reference was received by the Tribunal on the 22nd March, 1968 and was pending adjudication when, on the 18th Feb., 1970, the Company filed an application (Exhibit C-10) stating that a settlement (Exhibit C-10A) had been reached between it and the Sanghatana on the 7th Feb., 1970, that the same had been assented to by 564 out of 635 daily-rated workmen, that the dispute pending adjudication before the Tribunal related only to that category of workmen and that did not survive by reason of the settlement.

Settlement Exhibit C-10A was challenged by the Telco Union through an application (Exhibit U-1) made to the Tribunal on the 14th April, 1970 and signed by 400 daily rated workmen who professed to be members of that Union with the allegation that it had been brought about by coercion, duress and false promises.

In these circumstances, the Tribunal addressed itself to the controversy regarding the legality and binding nature of the settlement. In that behalf its findings were :

(a) There was no evidence of the settlement being vitiated by any duress, coercion or false promises. It was, therefore, both legal and fully binding on the parties thereto under sub-section (1) of Section 18 read with Clause (p) of Section 2 of the Act.

(b) No attempt had been made by either party to the reference to prove as to how many of the 564 workmen who had assented to the settlement were members of the Sanghatana.

(c) Those of the 564 workmen aforesaid who were not members of the Sanghatana were not bound by the settlement inasmuch as they were not parties thereto but had ratified or accepted the settlement only after it had been reached; and such ratification and acceptance does not make them parties to the settlement for the purposes of the Act.

The Tribunal, therefore, proceeded to find out whether the settlement was just and fair and although it found it to be so in most aspects, it was of the opinion that an increase in the additional daily wage was called for in respect of each of the 7 grades of daily-rated workmen. That increase was calculated by it separately for each grade and varies from Rs. 7.80 to Rs. 12.90 per month. By the impugned award it declared accordingly, refusing to act upon the settlement although the same had been held by it to be legal and binding on the parties to it.

4. Aft



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top