JUDGMENT - S.A. BOBDE, J.:---These two Letters Patent Appeal arise out of the same complaint i.e. Complaint (ULP) No. 166 of 1993 instituted on behalf of the workmen against their employer M/s. Warden Co. (I) Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the "employer".

2. The main question in these appeals is whether an unrecognised Union is entitled to appear and act on behalf of the workmen of an industry governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the "I.D. Act", in a complaint relating to unfair labour practices other than those specified by Items 2 and 6 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the "M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act".

3. The complainants prayed for a declaration that the employer has engaged in unfair labour practice under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act. The workmen also prayed for wages from February 1992 till the date of filing of the complaint. There was also a prayer for bonus for the years 1990-91 and 1991-92; leave travel allowance for the years 1990-91 and 1991-92 and encashment of privilege leave and casual leave for the same years.

4. The complaint was filed originally by one D.R. Jagtap, a workman of the employer on his behalf and on behalf of two other workmen who authorised him to do so.

5. The grievance of the workmen in the complaint filed on 29-3-1993, in brief, was as follows:

That the employer carried on normal production till February 1991 and, thereafter, began tapering off its production. It paid wages to its workmen till September 1991. Then it paid wages for October 1991 in January 1992 and also delayed the payment for subsequent months. Since February 1992, no wages whatsoever have been paid to the workmen who have been reporting for duty.

6. In the complaint, the Industrial Court passed an ex-parte order directing payment of wages to the workmen. The employer did not pay the wages.

7. On 9-6-1993 the employer filed a reply in which it claimed to have arrived at a settlement with one Rashtriya General Kamgar Union, hereinafter referred to as the "RGKU ". According to it, under a settlement dated 15-3-1993, the workmen voluntarily gave up their wages from February 1992 to 15-3-1993 against an ex gratia payment of Rs. 4,000/-.

8. It is an admitted position that the industrial establishment of the employer is covered by the provisions of the I.D. Act. It is also undisputed that the only Union recognised under the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act operating in the manufacturing unit of the employer was one Bombay Labour Union and this Union has no membership from the employer's industrial establishment since 1992. Clearly, therefore, the settlement claimed by the employer as a defence for not paying wages was not with the recognised Union i.e. Bombay Labour Union, but with an unrecognised Union i.e. RGKU.

9. While the application for interim relief was pending, a Union called the Akhil Maharashtra Kamgar Union, hereinafter referred to as the "AMKU", filed an application dated 19-4-1993 for being impleaded as a party. It appears that the Industrial Court did not merely allow the AMKU to be joined, but though not prayed for, directed that the workmen D.R. Jagtap and others be deleted by its order dated 19-10-1993.

10. On 23-9-1994 the Industrial Court vacated interim relief granted by it earlier and relieved the employer from the direction to pay wages. The Industrial Court heavily relied on the settlement entered into by the employer with the unrecognised Union i.e. RGKU and took the view that the said settlement is binding on all the workmen of the employer.

11. The AMKU which had been substituted for the original workmen-complainants by an order dated 19-10-1993 filed Writ Petition No. 711 of 1995 before the learned Single Judge of this Court praying for a direction for payment of wages. Having regard to the contention that the workmen had signed a settlemen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document