IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established is that the Labour Court must prima facie satisfy itself on the fairness and justness of settlements under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, by examining the demands of the workmen, before approving based on majority acceptance.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Award dated 24.02.2022 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry in IA.No.161 of 2019 and I.A.No.10 of 2021 in I.D.(T).No.13 of 2014 and quash the same as being illegal and unjust and direct the 1st respondent to adjudicate the I.D.(T).No.13 of 2014 on merits and in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to the petitioner, within a time frame.)

1. Writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the Award dated 24.02.2022 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Puducherry in IA.No.161 of 2019 and I.A.No.10 of 2021 in I.D.(T).No.13 of 2014 and quash the same as illegal and unjust and to direct the 1st respondent to adjudicate the I.D.(T).No.13 of 2014 after affording opportunity to the petitioner, within a time frame.

2. The facts in a nut shell are as follows:

Initially the members of the petitioner union who are employees of the 1st respondent, were members of the 4th respondent herein. The 4th respondent union raised the dispute against the 1st respondent over a charter of demands and wage revision. The 1st respondent did not accept the charter of demands and wage revision and therefore the matter was referred for conciliation. As the conciliation failed, vide G.O. dated 13.08.2014, the Government referred the dispute for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal which was registered as I.D.(T).No.13 of 2014. The 4th respondent union filed claim petition on the basis of the charter of demands relating to the various service conditions of the workers. As the dispute did not progress well, it was felt that the 4th respondent was not espousing the cause of its workers and hence the Petitioner Union was formed. After its formation, the petitioner filed implead application in I.D.(T).No.13/2014 which was allowed by the Industrial Tribunal and the petitioner was impleaded in I.D.(T).No.13/2014. After the petitioner union was impleaded, the 4th respondent herein entered into 18(1) settlements on 29.08.2019 and 27.07.2019 with the 1st respondent. As the majority of the member's of the petitioner union were not satisfied with the terms of the 18(1) Settlement they did not accept it. While so, the 1st and 3 rd respondents filed I.A.No.10 of 2021 and I.A.No.161 of 2019 in I.D.(T). No.13 of 2014 under Section 11 of the I.D. Act, seeking the Industrial Tribunal to pass Award in terms of the settlement dated 29.08.2019 and 27.07.2019, entered into with the 4th respondent. The petitioner union opposed the I.As' on the ground that the settlement did not match its demands and also that the settlement was ex-facie illegal and exploitative. The Labour Court by common order dated 24.02.2022 allowed both the I.A.s' on the premise that the majority of the employees had accepted the settlement and signed. The Industrial Tribunal further directed that the benefits under the 18(1) settlement could be extended to the protesting employees also as no prejudice would be caused to them. Aggrieved by the common order passed in the I.As' the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that there were serious flaws in the adjudication process and therefore the order deserved to be set aside. According to the learned counsel, a cursory glance at the charter of demands raised by the petitioner union would establish that the 18(1) settlement was an unfair labour practise and also that the settlement was detrimental to the interest of the workers. The learned counsel submitted that the tribunal abdicated its duty by simply accepting the settlement without adjudicating on the fairness of the same, particularly, when several demands of the petitioner union were not addressed in the 18(1) settlement. The learned counsel further pleaded that the Labour Court considering that