Back
2006 Supreme(SC) 987
2006(8) Supreme 484
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Dalveer Bhandari, JJ.
M.D., M/s. Hindustan Fasteners Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
versus
Nashik Workers Union - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4553 of 2006
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 24626/2004)
Decided on 19-10-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Advocate, Nitin S. Tambwekar, B.S. Sai and K. Rajeev, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Advocate, Vipin M. Bentamin and Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Claim of wages raised on behalf of workmen on premise that lock out was illegal and was not the subject matter of settlement regarding other demands of workmen, reference on that issued could not be defeated by plea of settlement.
Headnote:LABOUR LAW - Settlement was arrived in regard to demands raised by respondent Union on behalf of workmen on 24-5-1993 - Industrial Dispute on a reference was pending to effect whether lock out effected by Management w.e.f. 14-1-1992 was justified - Maintainability of reference was questioned relying on settlement dt 24-5-1993 - Tribunal passed award in favour of union - High Court dismissed the writ and opined that settlement did not contain any provision as to whether workmen had given up their rights of wages during period the factory was under lock out - Appeal - Charter of Demands of Union did not relate to wages of workmen during lock out period - Wages to be paid to workmen which they had claimed as of right was not and could not have been subject matter of any payment or settlement - If claim was to be withdrawn by reason of settlement, same must find a specific mention therein - Findings of Tribunal and High Court could not be faulted with.
Held : The purport and object of a settlement arrived at by and between the management and the workmen is undisputedly required to be construed keeping in view its salutary effect. It is aimed at maintenance of industrial peace and harmony. A settlement, therefore, although is required to be read for upholding the validity thereof like any other agreement, it should be read in its entirety so as to ascertain the intention of the parties behind the same. It is true that in the said settlement, not only the Charter of Demands served on the management on or about 1.01.1993 was referred to, but the exchange of letters between the parties had also been referred to, but the intention of the parties is to be gathered having regard to the circumstances attending thereto. (Para 13)
There had been a lock-out and a protracted court proceeding. A long term solution was to be found out. The settlement was in relation to the purported causes of the lock-out. It was still continuing. A Charter of Demands of the Union was served on behalf of the workmen. It did not relate to wages of the workmen during the period of lock-out. Clause 20 of the said settlement must, therefore, be read keeping in view the aforementioned backdrop of events. But, before we embark upon the said question, we may notice the Charter of Demands dated 1.01.1993. The demands of workmen referred to pay scale, classification, dearness allowance, leave, various allowances including travelling allowance, washing allowance and various other allowances as specified therein e.g., uniform, festival advance, etc.(Para 14)
The parties, therefore, made it clear that the claim of wages raised on behalf of the workmen on the premise that the lock-out was illegal was not the subject matter of the settlement. The Tribunal, in our opinion, is right in arriving at the finding that the intention of the parties must be gathered from the attending circumstances; one of them being that although the parties were aware that the industrial dispute was pending but no reference thereto was made in the settlement.(Para 21)
Applying the principles of interpretation of a document and having regard to the circumstances attending thereto, we are of the opinion that the findings of the tribunal and the High Court cannot be faulted with. (Para 26)
(ii) Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 91 or 92 - Construction of a document so as to ascertain the intention of parties is not controlled by provisions of Sections 91 or 92 of the Act. (Para 23)
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J. - Leave granted.
2. Interpretation of a settlement arrived at by and between the parties hereto falls for consideration in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 8.12.2000 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in First Appeal No. 521 of 1992.
3. Appellant herein is engaged in engineering activities. Respondent No. 1 is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act. Appellant was a sick unit as envisaged under the Sick Industrial Company (Special Provision) Act, 1985. A settlement was arrived at on 11.5.1990 by and between the parties hereto in regard to the demands raised on behalf of the workmen. The period covered by the settlement was 1.01.1989 to 30.12.1992. The workmen thereafter went on strike. Several demands were also raised. A second settlement was arrived on 24.5.1993. In the preamble of the said settlement, it was stated:
"...The company has enforced lockout of its employees on and from 14.1.93 for the reasons mentioned in the companys lock out notice dated 28.12.90 and the said lockout is still continuing. In view of the long duration of the lockout and protracted court proceedings in the Industrial Court, Nashik and elsewhere the parties to the settlement felt a need to find out long term solution to the problems faced by them. The parties also sought the assistance of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nashik and in view of the discussions between the parties the acceptable solution have been found by them and they have settled the entire disputes between them over the clauses of the lock-out i.e. still continuing and the Charter of Demands of the Union served on behalf of the workmen..."
Clause 20 of the said settlement reads as under:
"That this settlement is in package deal viz-a-viz full demands raised by the Union under its charter of demands dated 1st January, 1993 and as well as elsewhere. It is expressly understood that this settlement is in full and final settlement of all the said demands and settles all demands of the Union/Workmen made till date of whatsoever nature. Such as of the demands as set out in the charter of demands and elsewhere, referred to hereinabove but not specifically dealt within this settlement are hereby treated as having been withdrawn and/or not pressed by the Union and the workmen and settled the same accordingly. It is further agreed that during the currency of this settlement, the Union and the workmen shall not raise any fresh demand whatsoever, whether covered by this settlement or otherwise and whether involving financial burden or not. No other demands of whatsoever nature shall be made by the Union or the workmen either directly or indirectly. Any demand made shall have the effect of nullifying this settlement."
4. Paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of Clause 23 and Clauses 27 and 28 of the said settlement read as under:
"11. The settlement shall encompass this settlement as well previous settlement dated 11.5.90 and shall constitute a whole contract between the parties. These settlements have rendered substantial benefits on the workmen and in view of the same, it is agreed between the partiers that there will be no work stoppage/ go slow during the pendency of this settlement. Any breach of this settlement shall render the above mentioned settlements as null and void.
12. The parties expressly agree that the definition of "wages" in various statutes in the industrial field will be followed by them for the purpose of their application, enforcement and implementation in any event. Payments under the terms of their settlement agreed to be made and accepted by the parties will not be affected and no further and additional claims will be made or canvassed by the workmen under these laws for increase in benefits and if made shall deem as covered and adjusted by this settlement or under the terms of this settlement.
13. Except to the extent expressly modified in this settlement, all other existing rights, and obligations and
