A recognized Union is the sole agent to enter into any settlement or agreement with the company, and a unilateral notice issued by the company, which has the effect of favouring one set of workmen against the other, amounts to showing favouritism or partiality and is an unfair labour practice.

JUDGMENT :

A.V. Savant, J.

Heard Dr. Chandrachud for petitioner and Shri. Ganguli for respondent no. 1.

2. This is a petition against the interim order dated 12th July 1993 passed in a pending reference no. 168 of 1990 by the industrial Court, Bombay. Under the said interim order the petitioner-company is directed to give the financial benefits to the remaining 34 workmen on their giving the necessary undertaking under protest. It has been further clarified that if such benefit is given to the said workmen as per the said interim order, it will be subject to the final outcome of the matter and any such amount will stand adjusted towards the arrears, if any, found due under the Award.

3. Since the petition is against an interim order as above, I need not go into the facts in great details. While I am inclined to expedite the hearing of the said reference, my reason for refusal to interfere with the said order are as under.

4. It appears that an earlier settlement dated 14th November 1986 came to an end by 30th November 1988. A fresh charter of demands was, therefore, presented on 1st December 1988. On failure report being submitted, a reference was made under Sec. 12 of the industrial Disputes Act on 17th May 1990. Though the opening para of the impugned order says that the payment is to be made to 40 workmen who had not accepted the undertaking both the learned Counsel stated that the correct number is 34 and 40. This is so because 70 out of 104 workmen have accepted the benefits.

5. The Industrial Tribunal has held that the Union had prima facie proved that it was entitled to interim relief and that balance of convenience was in favour of the Union and not the management. A finding has been recorded that the recognised Union is the sole agent to enter into any settlement or agreement with the company. In my view, this is consistent with the proviso to sub-sec. (1) of sec. 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Sub-sec.-(1) says that a settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workman otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement. However, proviso to sub-sec. (1) of sec. 18 says that where there is a recognised union for any undertaking under any law for the time being in force then such agreement shall be binding on all persons referred to in clause (c) and clause (d) of sub-sec. (3) of sec. 18. At the same time the learned Judge has kept the controversy open for adjudication at the final hearing stage. This has been specifically observed at the end of para 7. Similarly in para 9, it has been observed that an individual settlement would not be permissible if there is a recognised Union functioning in the Industry. Para 10 records a finding that while the financial benefits under notice dated 22nd January, 1990 have been given to a majority of the workmen, the same have been denied to 34 workmen who have decided to challenge the action on the part of the Company. Prima facie this would amount to discouraging the Union activities.

6. Dr. Chandrachud has invited my attention to the fact that in the face of the settlement dated 22nd January 1990 and the later settlement dated 26th August 1992, no such interim order could have been passed. Reliance is sought to be placed on the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of New Standard Engineering Company Ltd. Vs. N.L. Abhyankar and Others, Having perused the said decision, with respect, I do not think that the ratio of the said decision supports the Counsel's contention.

7. On the other hand Shri. Ganguli has contended that notice Ex. D dated 22nd January, 1990 was a unilateral decision and had clearly the result of favouring one set of the workmen against the other. This would amount to showing favouritism or partiality to one set of workers, regardless of merits which is an unfair labour practice within the meaning of item (5) of Schedule IV of the M. R. T. U. & P. U. L. P. Act, 1971. He has also invited the at