A compromise arrived at between a representative union and an employer under Section 42(4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, is not binding upon individual employees who have made an independent application to the Labour Court under the same section.

JUDGMENT :

CHAGLA, J.

1. This petition raises a rather important question as to the construction of Section 115A, Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946.

The Sidhpur Mills, respondents No. 3 before us, closed some of their departments on 10-12-1950 and continued the closure till 28-2-1951, and in these three months they played off some of their employees. Playing off is a technical term in industry & we understand that what it means is that due to the closure of certain departments some of the employees are asked to work for less hours than they were working before the closure and these employees are paid on the basis of the less work done by them.

On 24-3-1951, 98 employees of the Sidhpur Mills approached the mills in respect of their compensation for being played off under the proviso to Section 42(4), and on 15-5-1951 they applied to the Labour Court in respect of this compensation. This application was No. 450 of 1951. On 25-5-1951, the Mazdoor Mahajan Sangh also applied to the Labour Court in respect of compensation to the employees of the Sidhpur Mills who had been played off for the period December 1950 and January and February 1951, and this application of the Sangh was No. 505 of 1951.

On 28-8-1951, a compromise was arrived at between the Sangh and the Sidhpur Mills. It may be mentioned that the Sangh is a registered union under the Industrial Relations Act and is also a representative union. The Labour Court passed an order u/s 115A in terms of this compromise. The employees who had made their application on 24-3-1951, and who were not members of the Sangh required the Labour Court to adjudicate upon their application and the Labour Court took the view that in view of the compromise arrived at that application was no longer maintainable and dismissed it.

An appeal was taken to the Industrial Court and the Industrial Court confirmed that decision. There was a further appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal which also took the same view and now one of these 98 employees has come before us alleging that the Labour Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law and that it was incumbent upon the Labour Court to hear the application No. 450 of 1951 and pronounce its decision thereon.

2. The question therefore that We have to consider and decide is whether by reason of the compromise arrived at between the representative union and the employer, the Sidhpur Mills Co. Ltd., it was not competent for the individual employees of the Sidhpur Mills to proceed with an application which they have made u/s 42(4); in other words, whether a compromise arrived at in an application made by the representative union u/s 42(4) was binding upon the employees who had made an independent application to the Labour Court under the same section.

It is pertinent to note that the compromise relied upon by the employer is a compromise which was arrived at in application No. 505 of 1951 and no compromise was arrived at in application No. 450 of 1951. Application No. 450 of 1951 was never heard and never decided. The view taken by the Labour Court was that merely by reason of the compromise arrived at in application No. 505 of 1951, inasmuch as that compromise was between a representative union and the employer, the employees lost their right to get a decision in their own application which they had properly made u/s 42(4).

Now, as we said before, both the applications No. 450 of 1951 and No. 505 of 1951 were made u/s 42(4) and turning to that section, it confers a right both upon an employee and a representative union desiring a change in respect of any order passed by the employer under standing orders, or any industrial matter arising out of the application or interpretation of standing orders, or an industrial matter specified in Schedule III, to make an application to the Labour Court.

Now, before such an application can be made, the employee or a representative union has to approach in the prescribed manner the employer with a request f