The settlement entered into by the recognized Union and the management is binding on all workers, and individual workers cannot raise an industrial dispute regarding the settlement.

ORDER :

Assailing the order passed by the 2nd respondent in and by which the settlement entered into by the recognized Union was held to be valid, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are employed under the 3rd respondent as workers and it is alleged that they are paid wages, far below the amount contemplated under the Minimum Wages Act. It is the further case of the petitioners that on 24.8.2010, a charter of demand for wages, dearness allowance, etc., was placed on the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent had addressed the 2nd respondent stating that they are agreeable for negotiation with whichever Union that commands majority. It is the further case of the petitioners that the Union to which the petitioners belong is affiliated with CITU and the other is affiliated with the Labour Progressive Union. Due to certain unforeseen incident in the factory, all the workers resigned from the Labour Progressive Union and became members of the union in which the petitioners were members.

3. It is the further case of the petitioners that since the grievances of the workers were long pending, strike notice was issued by the Union on 6.10.2010 and on 22.9.2010. After series of correspondence between the officials and the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent was willing to recognize whichever Union that commanded majority and the 3rd respondent was also willing to conduct elections.

4. As no election was conducted by the 2nd respondent inspite of the communication of the 3rd respondent, the petitioners filed W.P. No.24353 of 2010 and vide order dated 4.1.2011, the writ petition was allowed and direction was issued to conduct elections. Aggrieved by the said order, W.A. No.166 of 2011 was filed, which was dismissed on 31.01.2013 and the SLP No.13275/2013 filed against the said order was also dismissed on 8.8.2014. Thereafter, elections were conducted and the Union to which the petitioners belong was declared as having elected.

5. It is the further case of the petitioners that notice was put up on 24.12.2014 by the 3rd respondent informing about the suspension of operation of the factory, challenging which an industrial dispute was raised before the 2nd respondent. Pending the dispute, the 3rd respondent credited the amount due to the workers in their bank account without their consent and though the workers tried to return the amount, however, the 3rd respondent refused to receive it.

6. It is the further case of the petitioners that the 3rd respondent convened a meeting with CITU Union along with two other Unions in which it was informed that the 3rd respondent wanted to enter into a settlement u/s 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act to which it was informed by the CITU Union that the decision of the majority in the General Body will be accepted. It is the further averment of the petitioners that on 12.2.2015, the settlement was entered into between the 3rd respondent and the CITU Union in which the Union has specifically stated that the said acceptance/rejection of settlement will be subject to the majority decision in the General Body.

7. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the meeting of the General Body was conducted on 13.2.2015 in which the majority of the workers did not sail along with the settlement, which factum was also communicated to the 3rd respondent. It is the further case of the petitioners that the 3rd respondent prevented the workers from entering the factory and also sought to remove the goods and raw materials with the help of police.

8. The 2nd respondent, called upon the 3rd respondent to file a reply with regard to the dispute raised by the workers and after hearing the parties, the 2nd respondent, vide order dated 10.10.2015, closed the dispute. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to close the dispute and if a consensus is not reached between the parties, the option open to the 2nd respondent is to subm