A settlement in conciliation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, must be arrived at with the assistance and concurrence of the conciliation officer, and the conciliation officer is required to ensure that the settlement is fair and reasonable.

Mhatre, J.

1. These two petitions raise identical issues based on the same set of facts. They have therefore been heard together. Writ Petition No.8505 of 2009 has been filed by the NRC employees union and some of its members (for the sake of convenience, the petitioners in this petition will be referred to as the `staff union'). Writ Petition No. 8574 of 2009 has been filed by individual workers employed in the factory of the respondent company for themselves and on behalf of 2083 workers whose names are listed in exhibit A to the Writ Petition. (for the sake of convenience, the petitioners in this petition will be referred as `individual workmen'). Both these writ petitions, have been filed to challenge the execution and implementation of settlements which the employer i.e. the NRC Limited (for short, hereinafter referred to as the `company') has arrived at with NRC Mazdoor Sangh (for short, `the Mazdoor Sangh'), which claims to be a recognised union under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for brevity the 'MRTU an PULP Act'). The principal challenge in both these petitions is to the settlement which is purportedly signed on 5.9.2008 in conciliation on the ground that the mandatory requirements of section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 and Rule 11 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 have been breached and, it is therefore, not binding on either the staff union and its members or the individual workmen of the factory. The settlement has also been challenged on the ground that it violates the provisions of section 25-O and section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act.

2. In order to appreciate the challenge to the settlements in these petitions it would be necessary to set out a few facts.

FACTS:

3. The Company was running three plants with a composite factory licence for the manufacture of nylon, rayon and chemicals in its factory at Mohane in District Thane. The factory was established over 442.55 acres of land. The individual workmen were engaged in the factory and were represented by the Maharashtra General Kamgar Union till 2001. Thereafter, the certificate of recognition was granted to Respondent No.3 union i.e. the Mazdoor Sangh on an application being filed by it u/s 14 of the MRTU & PULP Act. The staff employed by the company worked in the Head Office which was situated outside the precincts of the factory and in Mumbai city. The staff union was accorded recognition in 1991 under the MRTU & PULP Act and continued to represent the staff employed by the company. Several settlements were signed by it with the company in respect of the service conditions of the staff employed by the company; the last of such settlements was dated 25.8.1993 which was in force till 1996. Thereafter, the staff union raised a charter of demands for revision of the service conditions of the staff. The demands were referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal under Reference (IT) No.10 of 1997. The Company too raised its demands qua the service conditions of the members of the staff union which were also referred for adjudication being Reference (IT) No.12 of 1997. Both these references are pending before the Industrial Tribunal.

4. The staff was shifted from the Mumbai offices located in the Eros Building and in Ewart House to the factory premises in Mohane during the period from April 1995 to March 1996. The Mazdoor Sangh which claims to have obtained recognition under the MRTU & PULP Act in the place of the Maharashtra General Kamgar Union in 2001 did not file an application in either of the references being Reference Nos.(IT) Nos.10 of 1997 and 12 of 1997 to permit it instead of the staff union to represent the workmen i.e. the staff before the Tribunal.

5. It appears that the company was declared a sick company in 1987. As its net worth increased, by an order dated 10.1.1994 the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short,