Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
AMIT BORKAR
Tulshiram T. Patil – Appellant
Versus
Wellman Hindustan Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
AMIT BORKAR, J.
1. By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners call in question the legality and correctness of the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Thane in Complaint (ULP) No.181 of 2008. By the said order, the Industrial Court dismissed the complaint preferred by the petitioners under the MRTU and PULP Act and consequently rejected their claim for wages for the period from June 1999 to November 1999.
2. According to the petitioners, respondent No.1 company was engaged in the business of processing wool at its factory situated at Thane. It is their case that the company discontinued its operations and proposed to dispose of its factory land admeasuring about 8.33 acres along with plant and machinery, the total value of which was stated to be approximately Rs.125 crores. At the relevant time, about 445 employees were in service, whose names are set out in Exhibit ‘A’, and who were stated to be permanent workmen of respondent No.1.
3. The petitioners instituted Complaint (ULP) No.181 of 2008 alleging commission of unfair labour practices under Item No.9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition
The Settlement executed with the recognized Union becomes binding on all workmen, and the employer cannot deny the benefits of the Settlement to non-members of the recognized union. The recurring cau....
Settlements reached in conciliation proceedings bind all employees, not limited to union members, ensuring rights to unimplemented agreements.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that settlements entered into in Industrial Disputes are valid and legal, even though provisions similar to Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC do not exist in ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity and binding nature of settlements in industrial disputes, even if not confirmed by both parties, under Section 18(1) of the ID Act.
Settlements outside conciliation proceedings are binding under Section 18(1) of the ID Act, confirming that courts should recognize amicable resolutions to maintain industrial peace.
Settlements under the Payment of Wages Act and the Industrial Disputes Act are binding, even if not acknowledged by one party, provided they are legally sound and voluntarily entered into.
Settlements of wage disputes outside conciliation are valid and binding; a workman's absence in confirming does not invalidate the agreement.
Settlements in industrial disputes can be validly recognized if voluntarily accepted by both parties, even if one party does not appear to confirm the terms in court.
The settlement under Section 18(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, must be just and fair and cannot bind workmen if it does not meet this standard.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
