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

1990 Supreme(SC) 339

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. AHMADI AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.
Barauni Refinery Pragatisheel Shramik Parishad, Appellant
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others, Respondents
Civil Appeals Nos.930 and 931 of 1990, D/- 17-7-1990.
 

Headnote:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2 (p) and 18 - settlements are of two kinds: (i) those arrived at outside conciliation proceedings and (ii) those arrived at during conciliation proceedings - the first kind is of limited application as it binds only the parties to the agreement - the second kind has extended application as it is binding on all parties to the dispute, to all others summoned to appear at the conciliation and to all persons employed in the establishment and to all others who joined the establishment thereafter - a settlement at a conciliation proceeding with a recognised majority Union will be binding on all workmen of the establishment including those belonging to the minority Union which had objected to the same - the object is to uphold the sanctity of such settlements and to discourage an individual employee or a minority Union from scuttling the settlement since such a settlement is assured to be fair and reasonable and can safely be made binding on all. (Para 9)

       Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 - Preamble - purpose of certified Standing Orders is to define with precision the conditions of employment of workmen and to acquaint them with the same. (Para 10)

       Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and Sections 2 (p) and 18 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - settlement arrived at not making any mention about age of retirement - age of retirement fixed by clause 20 of certified Standing Orders - is a condition of service which was kept in tact by clause 19 of settlement - fresh demand by workmen to revise age of retirement - is in conflict with clauses 19 and 21 of the settlement as by clause 21 the Union had agreed not to raise any demand which would throw additional financial burden on the management - not open to the workmen to demand change in clause 20 during the operation of the settlement. (Paras 10 and 11)

JUDGMENT

AHMADI, J. :- These two appeals by two different Trade Unions of Barauni Refinery are directed against the decision of the High Court of Delhi which set aside, the modification of Cl. 20 of the Standing Orders certified under S. 5 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter called the Standing Orders Act). The brief facts giving rise to these two appeals are as under:

Two companies, namely, the Indian Re- finery, Limited and Indian Oil Company, Limited amalgamated in 1964 and a new Company known as Indian Oil Corporation, Limited (IOCL) was incorporated. This newly formed company comprised essentially of two divisions, namely, (1) Marketing Division, representing the staff, assets and business of Indian Oil Company Limited, and (2) Refinery and Pipe Lines Division, re-presenting the staff, assets and oil refinery manufacturing of petroleum products of Indian Refinery Limited. The age of superannuation of the staff in the Marketing Division was 60 years whereas the age of superannuation for the Refinery and Pipe Lines Division was fixed at 58 years under Cl. 20 of. the Standing Orders concerning Barauni Refinery. The IOCL has refineries in different parts of the country including one at Barauni. The Standing Orders concerning the Barauni Refinery came into force on 5th December, 1964 as provided by S. 7 of the Standing Orders Act and apply to all work-men employed in the said industrial establishment. Cl. 20 of the Standing Orders reads as under:

"Every employee shall retire from service on completing the age of 58 years. Extension for a maximum period of 5 years but not for more than one year at a time may be given at the discretion of the company provided the employee is certified to be fit by the Companys Medical Officer and provided further that the employee concerned also consents to such extension."

2. By a joint letter dated 15th December, 1981, 14 recognised unions representing the employees of the IOCL working in different refineries and pipe lines divisions submitted a charter of demands in terms of Cl. 2.1.3 of the long term settlement dated 3rd December, 1979. By Cl. 18 of this charter of demands the superannuation age was sought to be enhanced to 60 years. A similar- charter of demands was forwarded by the Barauni Telshodhak Mazdoor Union to the General Manager, IOCL, Barauni Refinery, on 23rd December, 1981. Pursuant to the presentation of this charter of demands, meetings were held between the Management of IOCL (R & P Division) and the recognised unions of the said Division from time to time. As a result of discussions held at the said meetings a settlement was mutually arrived at by and between the parties on May 24, 1983. Clauses 19 and 21 of this general settlement concerning all the Refineries and Pipe Lines Divisions, inter alia provided as under:

"19. The Corporation agrees that such terms and conditions of service as well as amenities and allowances as are not changed under this settlement shall remain unchanged and operative during the period of the settlement."

"21. The Unions agree that during the period of operation of this settlement, they shall not raise any demand having financial burden on the Corporation other than bonus provided that this clause shall not affect the rights and obligations of the parties in regard to matters covered under S. 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947."

This general settlement was to remain in force from 1st May, 1982 to 30th April, 1986. After this general settlement was signed by the Management and the union representatives a separate memorandum of settlement dated 4th August, 1983 was signed between the IOCL (R & P Division), Barauni Refinery, and their workmen represented by Barauni Telshodhak Mazdoor Union, Barauni Refinery, under Ss. 12(3) and 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in conciliation proceedings initiated by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer, Begusarai. This settlement too was to remain in























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