Back
2006 Supreme(Kar) 533
Karnataka High Court
Judges : Anand Byrareddy
NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION (APKK AND M) LIMITED REPRESENTED HEREIN BY. - Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL TEXTILES CORPORATION SHOWROOM EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION REPRESENTED BY - Respondent
Writ Petition 6505 Of 2002
Decided On : 07/12/2006
Advocates Appeared :
ANAND, D.LEELA KRISHNA, S.S.NAGANANDA, SUDHISH PAI, SUNDARASWAMY RAMDAS
Headnote:Labour & Services -Settlement -Bindingness. See, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -Section 18(1).
Cases Referred : AIR 1991 SC 2163, 1965 (2) LLJ 110 (SC), AIR 1977 SC 322, 1978-I-LLJ 487 (SC), 1976 2 LLJ 144 (SC), AIR 1997 SC 2334, 2000 (1) LLJ 247 (SC), AIR 1981 SC 2163, (2002) 5 SCC 669, 1978-II-LLJ 144, 1978-I-LLJ 487, 2004-III-LLJ 228, 1978-II-LLJ 22, 1964-I-LLJ 380, (2001) 2 LRI 998, 1993-I-LLJ 990, 1975-II-LLJ 345, AIR 1994 SC 152, 1978-II-LLJ 22, AIR 1974 SC 1132, (1977) 2 SCC 806, (2004) 1 SCC 68, (2004) 8 SCC 262, (2004) 1 SCC 68: 2004 SCC (L & S) 32.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -Section 18(1) -Settlement -Bindingness of. [Anand Byrareddy, J.] - In the case of Tata Chemicals Ltd. and Workmen - 1978-II-L.L.J. 22, wherein, while deciding the question whether the acceptance of benefits of the settlement by members of a minority union would operate as implied agreement by acquiescence and debar that union from raising a demand, the Supreme Court has held that an agreement which is not arrived at during the course of conciliation proceedings and in terms of Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, would not bind any one other than the parties thereto. The fact that a recognised Union had arrived at the agreement with the employer company, could not operate as a legal impediment in the way of the Union which was not a party to the agreement, to raise a demand or dispute with regard to a demand, which was not the subject matter of the earlier agreement and has concluded that an implied agreement by acquiescence, or by conduct such as acceptance of a benefit under an agreement to which the worker acquiescing or accepting the benefit was not a party, being outside the purview of the Act, would not be binding on such a worker. And, even if 99% of the workers have impliedly accepted the agreements arrived at, it will not - whatever its effect under the general law - put an end to the dispute before the Labour Court and make it "functus officio" under the Act. And therefore, the theory of implied agreement by acquiescence sought to be built up on behalf of the appellant, could not be said to be against the workmen, who are not signatories to the agreement. And further he would submit that the case law relied upon by the petitioner in this regard, is not in respect of private settlement as contemplated under Section 18(1) of the Act and therefore, would have no application in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court as above.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -Res judicata -Applicability of the doctrine. See, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -Section 11.
Cases Referred : AIR 1991 SC 2163, 1965 (2) LLJ 110 (SC), AIR 1977 SC 322, 1978-I-LLJ 487 (SC), 1976 2 LLJ 144 (SC), AIR 1997 SC 2334, 2000 (1) LLJ 247 (SC), AIR 1981 SC 2163, (2002) 5 SCC 669, 1978-II-LLJ 144, 1978-I-LLJ 487, 2004-III-LLJ 228, 1978-II-LLJ 22, 1964-I-LLJ 380, (2001) 2 LRI 998, 1993-I-LLJ 990, 1975-II-LLJ 345, AIR 1994 SC 152, 1978-II-LLJ 22, AIR 1974 SC 1132, (1977) 2 SCC 806, (2004) 1 SCC 68, (2004) 8 SCC 262, (2004) 1 SCC 68: 2004 SCC (L & S) 32.
( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks to challenge the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for brevity) holding that employees of the petitioner working in its showrooms are entitled to parity in wages and other benefits on par with employees of its divisional Office.
( 2 ) THE petitioner states that it is a Government company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is a subsidiary of National Textile Corporation (hereinafter called "ntc" for brevity ). The NTC has 9 region-wise subsidiaries, the petitioner is one of them, controlling textile mills situated in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and the Union Territory of Mahe. There are 4 mills in Karnataka under the petitioner. There is a marketing Division in the petitioner Corporation. The service conditions of the employees working in the Corporate office, textile Units and the Marketing Division are said to be distinct and separate from inception. This is reflected in the industrial settlements entered into, from time to time, as between the management and the trade unions. The respondent represents employees working in the showrooms in Karnataka.
( 3 ) THE Marketing Division of the petitioner Corporation is registered separately under the Shops and Establishments Act, 1961. The Service conditions of all the employees working in the marketing Division in all the States controlled by the petitioner Corporation is one and the same. The present dispute pertains to the Marketing Division. There is a federation of Unions consisting of the NTC showroom Employees Union, Karnataka, NTC Marketing Division employees Union, Andhra Pradesh and NTC Marketing Division Employees Association, kerala, consisting of 305 members in all. The respondent Union has a strength of 20 members.
( 4 ) THE Federation has negotiated various wage settlements since 1979. The Federation had placed a Charter of Demands dated 6. 7. 1994 consisting of 20 demands in respect of employees working in the Marketing Division including those in Karnataka. The first respondent had come into being in 1993 with a strength of 26 members, now reduced to 20, since six erstwhile members had accepted the settlement signed by the majority union and had resigned from the membership of the first respondent
( 5 ) WHEN the Charter of Demands of the Federation dated 6. 7. 1994, was pending consideration, the respondent Union had placed another Charter of demands dated 20. 8. 1994. The conciliation officer had initiated proceedings with regard to this later Charter of Demands. The petitioner brought to the notice of the Conciliation Officer that negotiations were on between the majority union and the management and that the conciliation be postponed. And after discussions with the management an amicable settlement was recorded under a Memorandum of Settlement dated 17. 11. 1995, under Section 2 (p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity ).
( 6 ) NOTWITHSTANDING the above, the Conciliation Officer had proceeded with the dispute raised by the respondent and had reported failure of conciliation to the State Government. The State government by an order dated 30. 8. 1995, referred the following disputes for adjudication to the industrial Tribunal.. Whether the employees working in the Show Rooms of National Textile Corporation are justified in placing the following demands on the management:
1) That the disparity in the pay scales between the employees working in the Show Rooms and those working in the Divisional Office be removed and pay scales recommended by the Fourth pay Commission be extended to the employees working in the Show Rooms also; 2) That a promotion policy be framed as the management has been transferring the employees arbitrarily; 3) That the scales incentive be calculated by taking into consideration the scales of the entire show Rooms put together instead of individual sales pertainin
