http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 2

PETITIONER:

M/S HARI FERTILIZERS

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/07/2000

BENCH:

Shivaraj V. Patil, S.R.Babu

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

RAJENDRA BABU, J. :

There are fourappeals filed before us, which arise out

of the common order made by the High Court. The third

respondent in each of these cases has been a workman on the

establishment of the appellant. An agreement was entered

into by the appellant and the trade unions in the presence

of the Additional Labour Commissioner (Conciliation) on

19.10.89 settling counter disputes.

The scheme of the settlement of disputes under the

U.P.Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] is

identical except that under Section 6-B of the U.P. Act

there is no provision corresponding to the Act. The High

Court has, therefore, given a finding that this aforesaid

provision is applicable in the State of U.P. This view of

the High Court appears to be correct. It would only mean

that settlement in the course of conciliation reached with

the union or the unions representing the much larger

interest of the workmen would ordinarily be binding on

majority of the unions. Undoubtedly, even a dispute not

espoused by a union, but deemed to be a dispute under

Section 2-A of the Act, a union can enter into settlement,

in the larger interests of the workmen and the Industry.

In the present case it could be seen that each of the

workman had been terminated from service long before the

question of closure arose. In fact, the agreement

specifically refers to services of seven workmen whose

services had been terminated in the year 1988-89 and not

with regard to others.

There are three crucial clauses in the agreement

arising from interpretation Clause (7), Clause (10) and

Clause (14). Clause (7) is to the effect that services of

the seven workmen terminated in the year 1988-89 and whose

disputes are pending before the Industrial Tribunal (1)

Allahabad certain terms for settlement were made. If the

closure compensation is more than Rs.15,000/- then that

amount shall be payable and if such compensation is less

than the said amount of Rs.15,000/- then lesser amount shall

be payable. Clause (10) provides that all such

disputes/suits, which are pending before the High Court or

Tribunal/Labour Court, whether collective or individual,

would be deemed to have been finally decided on the basis of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 2

this agreement and all such cases would be withdrawn from

the Court. Clause (14) reads that on the basis of this

agreement in connection with all the disputes and payments

arising out of the closer, all the existing disputes would

be deemed to have been finally decided. However,

respondents in each of these cases disputed applicability of

the aforesaid settlement to their case. Before the Tribunal

an application was filed for the appellants claiming that

the reference should be decided in terms of the settlement

dated 19.10.1989. That application has been rejected and

the writ petition was filed before the High Court by the

appellants. The High Court took the view that in the

present case the services of each of the respondents were

terminated in year 1985 and unless his consent is taken, the

union has no right to settle the disputes relating to his

termination of service and in the absence of any mention of

this dispute in the settlement, it is of no consequence and

therefore on that basis held that the view taken by the

Labour Court is correct and calls for no interference and

rejected the writ petition filed by the appellants. Hence

this appeal.

Read