The court established that the recognized union's rights did not extend to terminating non-member employees' services, and identified violations of labor laws and unfair labor practices.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition is directed against the order of the Industrial Court, dated 22 July, 1994, rejecting Complaint (U.L.P.) No. 112 of 1988 filed under item (5) of Sch. IV read with items (1) and (4) of Sch. II of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 19.71 Act). The case of the petitioner is that voluntary retirement schemes were floated by respondent No. 1-company in 1976, 1979, 1983 and 1989. The strength of the workmen was substantially reduced on 2nd February, 1988, a settlement was arrived at between Cooper Kamgar Sangh, the recognised union in the establishment under the 1971 Act, and the respondent No. 1-company agreeing to retrench 492 permanent employees. As a consequence of this agreement, the services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from 5 February, 1988. The petitioner and other workmen filed complaints before the Industrial Court under item (5) of Sch. IV read with items (1) and (4) or Sch. II of the 1971, Act pleading, inter alia, that the settlement of 2 February, 1988 was discriminatory as 318 workmen were retained in service although some of them were junior to the petitioner. It was also pleaded that many of the workmen whose services were terminated were not members of the recognised union and thereby the respondent-company has shown favouritism and partiality to one set of workmen. It was also the claim of the petitioner in the complaint that it was because of his trade union activities that his services had been terminated by means of the settlement. The petitioner, therefore, pleaded that S. 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 1947 Act) and rules 80 and 81 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957, had been violated.

2. In the written statement filed by respondent No. 1-company, it was pleaded that since the settlement, dated 2 February, 1988, was with a recognised union and the recognised union had agreed that 318 workmen would be retained in service while the others would be retrenched, there was no question of any violation of S. 25-G nor was it necessary to comply with rules 80 and 81 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957, The settlement in question as well as several other documents were filed before the Industrial Court. Affidavit of the petitioner and the Personnel Manager of the respondent No. 1-company were also filed. However, it was agreed between the parties that the matter should proceed on the basis of the affidavits without any cross-examination in the matter.

3. By a common order, dated 22 July, 1994, the Industrial Court dismissed the complaints filed by the petitioner and other workmen by coming to the conclusion that once there was a settlement with a recognised union, an individual workman could not challenge the settlement. The Industrial Court came to the conclusion that there was no unfair labour practice and that the retrenchment was valid. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. The questions, therefore, that arise in the present writ petition are whether a trade union recognised under the 1971 Act an decide the fate of all the workmen in the establishment as to their tenure of employment. Can an employer and the recognised trade union decide the fate of workmen who are not the members of the recognised union by entering into a settlement agreeing to terminate their services, in violation of provisions of law. If the answer to these questions is in the negative, then the petitioner must succeed in this petition.

5. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the settlement which was entered into on 2 February, 1988 between the respondent No. 1 company and the recognised union was void in so far as it provided for the termination of 492 employees while retaining 318 in service. It is submitted that such a settlement is invalid, the clauses relating to termination of the serv