Entitlement to benefits of a settlement signed under Section 2(p) r/w 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is limited to members of the union that signed the settlement, and compliance with the settlement's terms and conditions is necessary for workmen to receive the benefits.

JUDGMENT:

1. This petition impugns the judgment and order of the Industrial Court in complaint (ULP )No.172 of 1998 whereby the complaint filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.

2. All the petitioners are employees of Respondent No.1 and are employed till today with the company. A settlement was arrived at between Respondent No.1 and Sarva Shramik Sanghatana on 20.7.1997. That settlement was signed u/s 2(p) r/w 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Sarva Shramik Sanghatana (for short, hereinafter referred to as `Sanghatana') represented a majority of the workmen employed with Respondent No.1. Admittedly the petitioners were not members of the Sanghatana at the relevant time. According to them, the benefits of this settlement dated 20.7.1997 were not extended to them only because they were not members of the Sanghatana. It appears that the petitioners complained to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour who called upon Respondent No.1 to forward a copy of the settlement to the petitioners. The settlement stipulated that for securing the benefits under the settlement, the workmen were required to give an undertaking in the format annexed to the settlement. It appears that though the petitioners signed the undertaking it was not submitted within the prescribed time of two weeks from the date of the settlement. Moreover, the undertaking which was submitted by the petitioners was conditional.

3. As the benefits of the settlement were not extended to the petitioners they filed complaint (ULP) No.172 of 1998 under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. They contended that they were entitled to the benefits of the settlement like all other workers from 1.7.1977. According to the Petitioners by not paying the benefits of the settlement Respondent No.1 had indulged in discrimination against one set of workers which was an unfair labour practice. The non-implementation of this settlement according to the petitioners also amounted to an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV. The Petitioners conceded that they had been extended the benefits of the settlement from August 1998 after they submitted unconditional undertakings with their letter dated 7.8.1998.

4. Respondent No.1 in its written statement contended that the benefits had been extended after receipt of the unconditional undertakings from the petitioners, though they were received belatedly. It was contended that the settlement was signed with the Sanghatana and only the members of the Sanghatana were entitled to the benefits of the settlement. However, these benefits were extended to the petitioners on receiving unconditional undertakings from them in the format annexed to the settlement.

5. Evidence of the petitioner No.20 was recorded on behalf of all the petitioners in support of the complaint. This witness conceded that they became aware of the settlement having been signed after the members of the Sanghatana had celebrated the signing of the settlement. He has also stated that none of the complainants were members of the Sanghatana. He has deposed that they had signed copies of an undertaking after making alterations/modifications in the required undertaking unilaterally. This witness has accepted the fact that after the undertaking was signed unconditionally by the workmen they had all received benefits of the settlement.

6. The Industrial Court has dismissed the complaint by concluding that the workmen had failed to prove that there was any unfair labour practice committed by Respondent No.1. It was held that since the workmen were not members of the Sanghatana they were not entitled to benefits of the Settlement signed under section 2(p) r/w 18(1) as a matter of right. The workmen concerned were entitled to the benefits only after they submitted undertakings in the specified format and, therefore according to the Industrial Court there was no unfair labour practice on the part of Respondent No.1. It was further held that