JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:---Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner. None present for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, though served. Perused the records.

2. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 15-3-1999, passed by the Industrial Court dismissing the complaint filed under section 28 r/w Items 5 and 9 of the Schedule-IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter called as "the said Act". The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been denied the benefits payable in terms of the Settlement dated 28-8-1991 even though such payments are being made to other workmen. The defence of the respondents is that the petitioner has no furnished the necessary declaration in terms of the Clause 24 of the Settlement and considering the provisions of the Clause 25 of the Settlement, the respondents are not liable to pay the dues to the petitioner and that therefore there is no case of any unfair labour practice being adopted by the respondents. The Industrial Court after considering the terms of the Settlement dated 28-8-1991 under which the dues were claimed by the petitioner, and considering the fact that the petitioner has not accepted the said settlement, dismissed the complaint while placing reliance in the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of (Balmer Lawrie Workers' Union, Bombay another v. Balmer Lawrie Co. Ltd. others)1, reported in 1985(I) C.L.R. 103. Hence, the present petition.

3. While assailing the impugned judgment and order, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that in terms of one of the clauses of the Settlement dated 28-8-1991, the employees are required to pay donation to a Trust as well as subscription to the union and the petitioner objected to those provisions, the same being relating to the compulsory and coercive payment of money either to the trust or the union by the employees. Further, that section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, defines the term "industrial dispute" means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person. Considering the said definition of the term "industrial disputes", according to the learned Advocate, the terms of the Settlement could only relate to the terms of employment or the conditions of labour and the provision relating to the requirement of payment of donation or subscription cannot have any relationship to the terms of employment or conditions of labour and, therefore, the said clause is per se illegal and cannot be binding upon the petitioner and therefore merely because the said clause is not accepted by the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefits which he is otherwise entitled to under the said Settlement as such benefits are being enjoyed by other workmen, and having so denied, the respondents are guilty of unfair labour practice being adopted against the petitioner.

4. Apparently, the grievance of the petitioner relates to non-compliance of the terms of Settlement in relation to the petitioner even though the benefits under the said Settlement are made available to the other workmen. However, as rightly observed by the Industrial Court the fact remains that the petitioner has not accepted the Settlement dated 28-8-1991 in as much as that he has not furnished the necessary declaration in terms of the Clause 24 of the said Settlement. The Clause 24 of the Settlement clearly requires the workman desiring to avail the benefits under the said Settlement to sign the declaration form in the specimen set out in Schedule-B attached to the Settlement. The Clause 25 of the Settlement provides that in case any workman fails to sign the declaration form stipulated in the Clause 24 of the settlement, he shall not be eligible to r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document