1997 Supreme(Bom) 503

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
S.S. Nijjar, J.
Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. ..... Petitioner.
Versus
S.B. Shete, Presiding Officer First Labour Court others..... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 3501 of 1984, decided on 23-9-1997.
Advocates appeared :
B.P. Apte, for the petitioner.

Headnote:Sections 30, 42 and 114-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 33-C-Agreement with employees-Validity of settlement-Signing by Dy. Registrar of Co-op. Sugar Mills-Not duty authorised by employers-Contention Being Registrar, he is authorised-Held-Under BIR Act any settlement without following procedure under Section 42 has no binding force.-It is not the function of the Labour Court when exercising power under Section 33-C(2) to adjudicate on the legality or otherwise of an agreement or settlement on the basis of which the wages are claimed by the employees. The matters incidental to the computation of wages can be examined by the Labour Court. Here the very foundation of the claim of the employees was disputed by the petitioner on the ground that the agreement dated 4th January, 1977 is no agreement in the eye of law. Thus, Court found merit in the submissions made by Mr. Aple. The Labour Court has given erroneous finding with regard to the agreement dated 4th January, 1977. The Labour Court has also travelled beyond its jurisdiction in determining that the agreement dated 4th January, 1977 is final and binding even though the same has not been registered under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed.

       Section 33-C(2)-Agreement-Scope of demand by employee-Agreement being unlawful challenged-Adjudication of legality not tenable by labour Court-Section empower to recovery of prior determined amount.

       Sections 35, 30, 42 and 114-See Industrial Dispute Act, 1947-Section 33-C.

       Section 42-Non-registration - agreement-Implementation of subsequent agreement and registration-Agreement registered earlier illegal.

       Section 33-C-Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, Sections 35,30,42 and 114-Recommendations of-Central Wage Commission-Have they possessbinding value-Petitioner seeking implementation-Contention-These recommendations have binding value-Same as law-Held-Until they are agreed upon, they do not have binding value.-In the present case in view of the stand taken by the parties, the Labour Court framed 12 issue. It has held that the Second Central Wage Board and the Patil Committee Award are binding on the petitioner. It was also held that the petitioner had been unable to prove that the recommendations of the Second Central Wages Board and the Patil Committee Award do not have any statutory force, and they are not binding. It has been further held that the respondents have proved that the recommendations of the Second Central Wage Board and the Patil Committee are binding upon the petitioner. A perusal of the resolution passed by the Maharashtra Government shows that the recommendations of the Patil Committee were accepted by the Government. However, after accepting the same an appeal is made to the management and representatives of the union in the sugar industry that they should take steps to enter into agreements incorporating the decision given by the Chairman of the Committee and accepted by the State Government after following the procedure laid down under the Bombay Industrial Relation Act. 1946, to which the sugar industry in the State of Maharashtra is amendable. In view of the aforesaid appeal, it becomes quite obvious that the recommendations given by the Second Central Wage Board as also the recommendations given by the Patil Committee were only recommendatory in nature. They would become binding on the parties only if, the agreement are entered into between the management and the employees in accordance with the provisions of Sections 30 and 114 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act.

       Section 33-C-See Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946-Sections 30,42 and 114.