JUDGMENT - A.V. SAVANT, J.:---The petitioner-Mumbai Shramik Sangh- has by this petition challenged the settlement arrived at on 25th November, 1987 under section 12(3) read with section 18(3) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short "the said Act"). The first respondent is the concerned Conciliation Officer, the second respondent - The Bombay Tyres International Ltd. is the employer and the third respondent - General Secretary, Modistone Tyre Employees Union is the union representing majority of the workmen.

2. It appears that there was a negotiated settlement under section 12(3) read with section 18(3) of the said Act which was reached on 3rd January, 1983. However, certain disputes arose as a result of demands made on 23rd October, 1985, 13th May, 1986 and 4th July, 1987. The first respondent - employer declared a lock-out on 8th October, 1986. In the course of conciliation, meetings were held on 12th October, 1987, 16th October, 1987, 6th November, 1987, 18th November, 1987, 23rd November, 1987, 24th November, 1987 and finally on 25th November, 1987. As a result of the settlement arrived at in the course of the conciliation proceedings under section 18(3) of the said Act, the lock-out was lifted in two phases namely on 28th November, 1987 for the maintenance staff and on 9th January, 1988 for the rest of the employees. However, before the lock-out was actually lifted, a majority of the workmen had signed the necessary undertaking on 10th October, 1987.

3. Initially, the writ petition was summarily rejected on 13th October, 1988. However, on an appeal, Division Bench admitted the petition on 16th March, 1989.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel Smt. D'Souza for the petitioners, Shri Chogle, for the first respondent, Shri Rele, for respondent No. 2 and Shri Ganguli, for the third respondent. Smt. D'Souza, for the petitioners has raised the following contentions :

i) The settlement arrived at on 25th November, 1987 was not a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings under section 18(3) of the said Act but was merely a settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and some of the workmen otherwise than in the course of conciliation and was, therefore, a settlement falling under section (18)1 of the said Act.

ii) There was no proper notice of the conciliation proceedings which culminated in the settlement dated 25th November, 1987. Display of the notice dated 19th November, 1987 at the gate of the factory on 20th November, 1987 where there was a lock-out was not a proper intimation as contemplated by rule 11 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957.

iii) The display of notice on 20th November ,1987 gave a very short notice in as much as the settlement was arrived at on 25th November, 1987.

iv) The first respondent-Conciliation Officer did not actively participate in the conciliation proceedings and hence this was not a settlement arrived at in the course of the conciliation proceedings falling under section 18(3) of the said Act but was merely a settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workmen otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceedings and was, therefore, only a section 18(1) settlement.

5. Apart from the above contentions challenging the character of the settlement and the points regarding the manner and duration of the notice, on merits the learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the settlement arrived at was unfair and oppressive. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on some of the clauses in this settlement which, according to the learned Counsel, strictly did not form part of the charter of demands or were not as such referred to conciliation and were, therefore, outside the scope of the conciliation. My attention was invited to clause (v) dealing with bonus; clause (vi) dealing with production and productivity and particularly the aspect of the consultation falling under clause (vi)(c)(i) of the settlement; clause (viii) dealin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document