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

1986 Supreme(SC) 40

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND M.P. THAKKAR, JJ.
General Manager, Security Paper Mill, Hoshangabed, Appellant
Versus
R.S. Sharma and other, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No.2696 (NL) of 1984
 Decided on 14-2-1986.
Advocates appeared
Mr.C.V. Subba Rao , for Appellant ; Mr. M.N.Shroff, for Respondents.

Advocates:
C.V.SUBBA RAO, M.N.SHROFF

Headnote:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Ss. 2 (p) and 18-settlement- binding nature of-settlement arrived at in conciliation proceedings-binding on all including heirs and successors-settlement not arrived at through conciliation proceedings-binds only the signatories and none else.

       Even though a Conciliation Officer is not competent to adjudicate upon the disputes between the management and its workmen he is expected to assist them to arrive at a fair and just settlement. He has to play the role of an adviser and friend of both the parties and should see that neither party takes undue advantage of the situation. Any settlement arrived at should be a just and fair one. It is on account of this special feature of the settlement sub-section (3) of section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides that a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding under that Act shall be binding on (i) all parties to the industrial dispute, (ii) where a party referred to in clause (i) is an employer. his heirs, successors, or assigns in respect of the establishment to which the dispute relates and (iii) where a party referred to in clause (i) is comprised of workmen, all persons who were employed in the establishment or part of the establishment as the case may be to which the disputes relates on the date of the dispute and all persons who subsequently become employed in that establishment or part. Low thus attaches importance and sanctity to a settlement arrived at in the course of a conciliation proceeding since it carries a presumption that it is just and fair and makes it binding on all the parties as well as the other workmen in the establishment or the part of it to which it relates as stated above. But in the case of a settlement not arrived at in the course of a conciliation proceeding it has to be in writing and signed by the parties in the prescribed manner and a copy thereof should be sent to the officer authorised by appropriate Government in this behalf and to the Conciliation Officer. Such a settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workmen otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceedings is binding only on the parties to the agreement as provided in section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Such a settlement is not binding on the other workmen who are not parties to the settlement. [Para 5]

JUDGMENT

VENKATARAMIAH, J.:— This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment and order dated Nov. 10, 1983 passed by the Industrial Court, Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Appeal No. 25/PWA/81 modifying the order dated April 29, 1981 passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act (Labour Court No. 2), Bhopal in case No. 1/PWA/96. The facts of the case are briefly these. In the course of conciliation proceedings under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 a settlement was arrived at on June 29, 1973 between the management of the Security Paper Mill, Hoshangabad, the appellant herein, and the S. P. M. Employees Union, Hoshangabad. In the Memorandum of Settlement arrived at as per S. 12(3) of that Act one of the terms related to the incentive benefit. Clause 2(c) and (d) of the Memorandum of Settlement which relates to incentive benefit reads as follows :

"2.(c) The settlement on revised group incentive base of 6 M. T. a day will be treated as ad hoc regardless of merits of the case and will remain close and localised to S. P. M. and will not serve as precedent for norms of production in other departmental industrial undertakings.

(d) The revised base of 6 M. T. a day and the existing norms of the processing sections will be temporary and remain valid till Government take final decision on the basis of the revision and recommendations of the Expert Review Committee set up under letter No. F8(6)/73 Cy dated 5th April, 1973."

2. The above settlement was entered into on behalf of all the workmen and other non-operative officers and staff of the Security Paper Mill at Hoshangabad. When the above Settlement was in force the Government of India by its letter dated December 29, 1975 reduced the rate of incentive benefit payable by ordering that the entitlements of the non-operative officers and staff to the group incentive benefit shall be as under :

(i) All Gazetted Officers in charge of non-operative Sections (like Administrative and Chief Accounts Officers, Accounts Officers, Medical Officer and Junior Medical Officer) will be entitled to Group Incentive at 25 per cent of the rate applicable to industrial workmen.

(ii) All non-gazetted non-industrial staff and supervisor officers in non-operative sections such as office (Accounts, Establishment, Administration and General Sections), Dispensary, Estate etc. will be entitled to group Incentive at 50 per cent of the rate applicable to industrial workmen.

3. It was directed that the above order dated December 29, 1975 would be effective on the incentives to be drawn from January 1, 1976. The above order dated December 29, 1975 was challenged before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and that authority held that the modification of the incentive benefit made by the Government of India was illegal. After that the management entered into an agreement with one of the trade unions named S. P. M. Employees Union on April 11, 1979 reducing the rate of incentive benefit to 50 per cent to the non-operative employees i.e. administrative staff, accounts staff, estate employees and dispensary staff. After that the appellant paid the benefit at the reduced rates as per that agreement to the non-operative employees. The said agreement was not entered into during the course of any conciliation proceedings and in fact there were no conciliation proceedings pending at the time when the agreement was entered into. The respondents who were the non-operative staff and were not the members of the Union and parties to the agreement challenged the validity of the agreement before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act on the basis of the Settlement of the year 1973. The claim before that Authority was in respect of the period between May 1, 1979 to April 30, 1980 and the total amount claimed was Rs. 1,93,357.85. The management filed a statement of objections before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act stating that the S. P. M. Employees Union was the








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