JUDGMENT - R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---The petitioner, a break away fraction of the parent all India Union-Tata Consultancy Employees Union has been since then, i.e. 1986, frantically trying to establish itself in the undertaking of the respondent company at Mumbai. Now it is the question of its survival itself as the benefits of the last settlement of 1999 between the parent Union (recognised under the 1984 settlement by the respondent company and not under the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act, 1971), and the company was accepted "under protest" by all the 23 members. Initially this membership was claimed to be 200 in the year 1986. The erosion in the membership is not very much in dispute. Split and disunity has been the curse to the Trade Union movement in this country. For the reasons best known to the leaders of the petitioner union, with a small following amongst the categories of draughtmen, clerks, peons etc. the petitioner union submitted a separate charter of demands dated 12-4-1985 to the respondent company and raised an industrial dispute which finally came to be referred for adjudication by an order of reference dated 1-4-1986 to the industrial Tribunal Maharashtra at Mumbai.

2. Both the parties completed their pleadings and filed their respective documents. Both the parties also adduced their oral evidence before the Tribunal. I may mention here, as a matter of fact, that during the pendency of the adjudication there were three settlements between the parent union and the respondent company in respect of general demands of the workmen such as basic wages, dearness allowance, leave etc. The first such settlement was a little earlier before the order of reference, i.e. on 14-2-1986. Thereafter there were similar settlements exactly during the pendency of the reference before the Tribunal.

(a) Settlement dated 2-2-1989.---The benefits under this settlement were extended by the respondent company on its own to the members of the petitioner union, who accepted the same without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the pending reference.

(b) Settlement dated 8-3-1992.---This time the respondent company did not extend the benefits of the said settlement to the workmen covered under the reference unless they signed an undertaking to accept the settlement as binding and not to raise any dispute. The petitioner's members however did not agree to give such undertaking. They however, applied to the Tribunal to extend the benefits of the settlement by way of interim relief. The Industrial Tribunal accordingly by its award Part I dated 9-4-1992 extended the benefits of the said settlement to the workmen covered by the pending reference w.e.f. 1-1-1991.

(c) Settlement dated 5-7-1995.---On its application for additional interim relief the Tribunal extended the benefits of this settlement to the workmen covered by the pending reference by Award No. II dated 19-9-1996 w.e.f. 1-1-1994.

(d) By the final award dated 19-3-1998 the Tribunal rejected the reference as not maintainable in view of the settlements and for the reasons that the petitioner union had accepted the benefits under all the above settlements.

To complete the chronology of the settlement :

(e) Settlement dated 30-9-1999 was entered between the Parent Union and the respondent company after the award. By this time the total number of workmen employed was reduced to 200. Out of whom the 23 members of the petitioner union accepted the benefits, as usual, "under protest". All others had accepted the settlement unconditionally.

Baring the members of the petitioner union at Mumbai all the workmen in all the categories all over India had accepted all the settlements. Admittedly the petitioner union claims to represent only the workmen in the category of draughtman and clerks. The settlements covered all the categories of the workmen employed by the respondent company all over India, including the draughtman and clerks.

3. Shri S.J. Deshmukh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner union, has su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document