Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, three workmen, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an Award dated 28 August 2019 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-II, Mumbai. The Tribunal had rejected their Reference seeking enhancement of wages on par with the wages revised under a Memorandum of Settlement dated 29 April 2008 signed between the Bombay Customs House Agents Association and the Transport & Dock Workers Union. The petitioners were employed by the respondents, who were engaged in freight brokerage, clearing and shipping agency, and manpower services. The petitioners claimed that the respondents were sister concerns of the Damani family and that the settlement should apply to them. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence, held that the settlement was not binding on the respondents as they were not parties to it and the petitioners failed to prove that the respondents were members of the signatory association. The High Court, in its judgment, examined the scope of judicial review under Article 226 and found that the Tribunal's findings were based on appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. The Court noted that the petitioners had not produced any material to show that the respondents were bound by the settlement. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal's award. The Court also observed that the petitioners had not challenged the validity of the settlement or sought its extension to the respondents through any other legal mechanism.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Wage Enhancement - Binding Effect of Settlement - Section 18 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The workmen sought wage enhancement on par with a Memorandum of Settlement dated 29 April 2008 signed between Bombay Customs House Agents Association and Transport & Dock Workers Union. The Tribunal rejected the Reference holding that the settlement was not binding on the Respondent-employers as they were not parties to it. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding, noting that the workmen failed to prove that the Respondents were members of the signatory association or that the settlement applied to them. Held that the Tribunal's finding of fact was not perverse and did not warrant interference under Article 226. (Paras 2-14) B) Industrial Law - Perversity of Findings - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of Constitution of India - The Court examined whether the Tribunal's conclusion that the settlement was not binding was perverse. The workmen argued that the Respondents were sister concerns of the Damani family and should be bound. However, the Court found no evidence on record to establish that the Respondents were members of the Bombay Customs House Agents Association or that the settlement was intended to cover them. Held that the Tribunal's finding was based on appreciation of evidence and was not perverse, thus no interference was warranted. (Paras 15-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Government Industrial Tribunal erred in rejecting the Reference for wage enhancement on the ground that the Memorandum of Settlement dated 29 April 2008 was not binding on the Respondent-employers, and whether the Tribunal's findings are perverse.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-II dated 28 August 2019.
Law Points
- Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Section 18
- Section 2(p)
- Section 10
- Memorandum of Settlement
- Binding effect of settlement
- Perversity of findings
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226
