Settlement agreements under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act bind only parties to those agreements; unrecognized unions cannot enforce them or claim benefits without evidence of participation.

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company involved in the business of manufacturing and selling of Bengali Sweets and Savouries. The petitioner employed about 44 workers, out of them, 34 workers are members of the Union, namely the KC Das Employees Union. The petitioner, with a good intention of having good camaraderie with the employees, permitted the employees to form a Union in the name of the KC Das Employees Union (for short, 'Union'), affiliated with AITUC.

2.1 The petitioner and the Union entered into a bipartite settlement agreement on 06.06.2017 and the same expired on 31.03.2019 with the submission of fresh charter of demands from the Union dated 29.03.2019. The Management and the Union after negotiations and discussions finalised the settlement talks and entered into wage settlement dated 05.11.2019 under Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘I.D. Act’ for short) read with Rule 59 of the Karnataka Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 .

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that due to some misunderstanding among the members of the Union, around 10 to 15% of the workers, i.e., 10 out of 46 workers, have left the Union and joined an external Union i.e., respondent No.2 Union. However, despite the majority of the membership and recognition, the Management continued the recognition of its Union.

3.1 This being the state of affairs, respondent No.1 got issued notice on 02.02.2022 that respondent No. 2 Union submitted the petition to the Authority alleging that the petitioner violated the settlement agreement dated 30.09.2019, which was said to have been signed before the Labour Officer, Sub-Division-4, Bengaluru. The petitioner also submitted the preliminary objections with regard to there being no locus standi of respondent No.2 to espouse the cause of the workers, as it is not a recognised Union of the workers.

3.2 It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that pursuant to the reply, the submission was made before respondent No.1 and arguments were putforth on 17.03.2022. It is further contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that absolutely no settlement had taken place on 30.09.2019 before the Labour Officer nor did respondent No.2 justify and produce the so-called settlement before respondent No.1 or before this Court. Therefore, how respondent No.2 is an interested party without there being any settlement agreement with the petitioner, is a question to be answered.

3.3 Learned counsel further contends that respondent No.1 having not considered all these aspects, proceeded further to pass the impugned order, which is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside in violation of the basic tenor and convenants of the settlement agreement and the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "Act"). Learned counsel further contends that respondent No.1 has committed a serious error of law by passing the impugned order against the settled legal position and contrary to law and the principles of natural justice.

3.4 Learned counsel further contends that when respondent No.2 made a statement with regard to the alleged settlement agreement dated 30.09.2019, it was the duty of respondent No.2 to have produced the said settlement agreement before respondent No.1, which has not been done. Therefore, the question of considering the alleged settlement agreement dated 30.09.