Back
2009 Supreme(Bom) 94
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
MR. JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH MR. JUSTICE A.A. SAYED
Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd.
Versus
Paints Employees Union
O.O.C.J.A. No. 1079 of 2003 in W.P. No. 577 of 2001
Decided On : January 21,2009
For Appellant: C.U. Singh R.N. Shah, Sanjay Udeshi i/b
For Respondent: Sanjay Udeshi & Co., Susheel Mahadeshwar.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of workers accepting the terms of a settlement and the implications of a purported settlement under the M.R.T.U.& P.U.L.P. Act 1971.
Headnote:
Unfair Labour Practice - Industrial Disputes - M.R.T.U.& P.U.L.P. Act 1971 - Schedule II, Schedule IV - The court discussed the application of the settlement dated August 22, 1989 under the M.R.T.U.& P.U.L.P. Act 1971, specifically focusing on the interpretation of the settlement and its applicability to workers who did not sign the settlement. The court also considered the provisions of Section 30 of the Act and the distinction between settlements reached under different sections of the Industrial Disputes Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of workers accepting the terms of a settlement and the implications of a purported settlement. The court ultimately set aside the orders of the lower courts and dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant-union.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the order passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, which declared that the appellant-company committed unfair labour practice and directed the company to pay benefits to the concerned members of the complainant-union. The dispute arose from a settlement reached between the appellant company and a union, which was challenged on the grounds of representation and legitimacy of office bearers.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the settlement was not restricted to only members of the other union, and any employee by signing the settlement would have become entitled to the benefits of the settlement. The court also held that the Industrial Court was not justified in issuing directions for enforcement of the settlement in favor of the members of the complainant-union without their signing the settlement. As a result, the court set aside the orders of the lower courts and dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant-union.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation and applicability of the settlement under the M.R.T.U.& P.U.L.P. Act 1971, the legitimacy of the settlement, and the rights of workers who did not sign the settlement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of workers accepting the terms of a settlement and the implications of a purported settlement. It also highlighted the distinction between settlements reached under different sections of the Industrial Disputes Act and the applicability of such settlements to workers.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the lower courts, and dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant-union.
By this appeal the appellant challenges the order dated August 22, 2003 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 577/2001. That writ petition was filed by the present appellant challenging the order dated January 30, 2001 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No. 68/1990. By the order that was impugned before the learned single Judge, it was declared by the Industrial Court that the appellant-company has committed unfair labour practice under Items 1 (c) and 2(b) of Schedule II and Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U.& P.U.L.P. Act 1971 and has directed the appellant company to pay to the concerned members of the complainant-union, the amount as per settlement dated August 22, 1989 by deducting Rs.2000/- for factory workers and Rs. 1750/- for staff members.
2. The facts that are relevant and material for deciding this appeal are that some time in the year 1987 there was a lockout declared by the appellant-company and thereafter settlement was arrived at between the appellant company and the complainant-union. It appears that at the same time one Mr. Vijay Kamble was the president of the complainant union. In pursuance of that settlement the lockout was lifted. That settlement was challenged on the ground that Mr. Vijay Kamble had no authority to represent the complainant union and that the legitimate office bearers were Mr. Limaye and Mr. Walawalkar. That contention was upheld by the competent Court. There was a settlement reached between the appellant and Shramik Utkarsha Sabha, of which Mr. Vijay Kamble was the president. After this settlement was reached the demands raised on behalf of the workers by the complainant union were referred to the Industrial Tribunal. An award has been a made by the Industrial Tribunal and that award is in force from April 1, 1991. complaint was filed by the complainant-union claiming that by entering into the settlement with Shramik Utkarsha Sabha the employer has committed unfair labour practice defined under Items 1(c) ld 2(b) of Schedule 2 and items 5 and 9 of schedule 4 of the Act. In the complaint an order as also sought against the employer to pay, to such of the workmen who were not paid, the 1m of Rs.200 per month and one lump of Rs. 6000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per mum. The parties led evidence both oral and documentary and the complaint was decided by e Industrial Court by order dated January 31, 2001, the Industrial Court recorded the finding at the employer has committed unfair labour practice under the items mentioned above and therefore directed that benefits of settlement dated August 22, 1989 should be extended to all employees irrespective of whether they have signed the settlement or not. It is to be noted here that the controversy in the complaint dated only to the period January 11, 1987 to April 1, 1991.
3. That award was challenged before the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 577/2001. The learned single Judge has rejected that petition by his order dated August 22, 2001. Therefore, the employer came in appeal against the order made by the Industrial Court as also the learned single Judge.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the settlement dated August 22, 1989 though it was reached with one lion, Clause (7) of the settlement made it clear that any workman irrespective of his union membership can sign the settlement and entitled to the benefits of the settlement that according to the learned counsel, therefore, it cannot be said that the settlement was applicable to only one set of workers or it was of available to the members of the Union which signed the settlement. The learned counsel submits that there is no pleading in the complaint that the clause in the settlement about the workman signing the agreement giving undertaking to give particular level of productivity was mala fide or that it was introduced in the settlement to set a trap for the workers
