Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh, a recognised union of employees working with the respondent establishment, M/s. Lloyds Line Pipes Ltd., filed a complaint under Section 28 read with items 2(a), 2(b), and 3 of Schedule II and items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971, before the Industrial Court at Thane. The complaint alleged that the respondent employer had entered into a settlement with a rival internal union, Lloyd Kamgar Sanghatana, on 22 August 2009, and was refusing to extend the benefits of that settlement to the members of the complainant union. The complainant union claimed that it was ready and willing to settle its charter of demands but the employer deliberately refused to negotiate. It further alleged that the employer insisted on an undertaking from its members in a particular format before extending benefits, which amounted to an unfair labour practice. The union also invoked the principle of equal work equal pay. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint, leading to the present writ petition. The High Court examined the nature of the settlement, noting that it was a package deal involving wage revisions and other benefits, and that the employer had offered to extend the same benefits to the complainant union's members if they individually accepted the settlement terms by giving an undertaking. The court held that the settlement was binding only on the signatory union and its members under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that the employer could not be compelled to extend benefits to non-signatories without their acceptance of the terms. The insistence on an undertaking was not an unfair labour practice but a legitimate requirement to ensure that the employees accepted the settlement as a whole. The principle of equal work equal pay was not applicable as the settlement was a composite package. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Settlement Benefits - Extension to Non-Signatory Union - MRTU and PULP Act, 1971, Schedule II Items 2(a), 2(b), 3, Schedule IV Items 5, 9 - The court considered whether the employer's refusal to extend benefits of a settlement with a rival union to members of the complainant union, without requiring an undertaking, constituted an unfair labour practice. The court held that the employer's insistence on an undertaking from individual employees to accept the settlement terms was not an unfair labour practice, as the settlement was binding only on signatories and those who accept it individually. The principle of equal work equal pay was not applicable as the settlement was a package deal. (Paras 2-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether non-extension of benefits of a settlement entered into by the employer with a rival union to the members of the complainant union amounts to an unfair labour practice under the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Industrial Court. The court held that the employer's insistence on an undertaking from individual employees before extending the benefits of the settlement to members of the complainant union did not constitute an unfair labour practice. The settlement was binding only on signatories and those who accept it individually. The principle of equal work equal pay was not applicable as the settlement was a composite package.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- settlement benefits
- extension to non-signatory union
- MRTU and PULP Act
- 1971
- Section 18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- equal work equal pay
- recognised union
- internal union
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (02) 40
WRIT PETITION NO.8238 OF 2016
Mr. Anand R. Pai, i/b. G.S. Baj, for the Petitioner. Mr. A.K. Jalisatgi, a/w. Mr. T.R. Yadav and Mr. Vaibhav Jagdale, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh
M/s. Lloyds Line Pipes Ltd. And Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an order of the Industrial Court at Thane dismissing a complaint of unfair labour practice filed by the petitioner union.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the Industrial Court's order and to direct the respondents to extend the benefits of the settlement dated 22 August 2009 to its members without insisting on an undertaking.
Filing Reason
The petitioner union alleged that the respondent employer's refusal to extend settlement benefits to its members, and insistence on an undertaking, amounted to unfair labour practice under the MRTU and PULP Act.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court at Thane dismissed the complaint of unfair labour practice filed by the petitioner.
Issues
Whether non-extension of benefits of a settlement entered into by the employer with a rival union to the members of the complainant union amounts to an unfair labour practice under the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971.
Whether the employer's insistence on an undertaking from individual employees before extending settlement benefits constitutes an unfair labour practice.
Whether the principle of equal work equal pay applies to compel extension of settlement benefits to non-signatory union members.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: The respondent employer deliberately refused to negotiate with the complainant union and insisted on an undertaking from its members before extending benefits of the settlement with the rival union, which amounts to unfair labour practice. The principle of equal work equal pay supports the claim.
Respondent: The settlement was a package deal; the employer offered to extend the same benefits to the complainant union's members if they individually accepted the settlement terms by giving an undertaking. The insistence on an undertaking is not an unfair labour practice but a legitimate requirement to ensure acceptance of the settlement as a whole.
Ratio Decidendi
A settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is binding only on the parties to the settlement and their members. An employer cannot be compelled to extend benefits of a settlement to non-signatory union members without their acceptance of the terms of the settlement. Insistence on an undertaking from individual employees to accept the settlement as a whole is not an unfair labour practice. The principle of equal work equal pay does not apply to a composite settlement package.
Judgment Excerpts
The settlement is a package deal. It involves wage revision and other benefits. The employer cannot be compelled to extend the benefits of the settlement to the members of the complainant union without their acceptance of the terms of the settlement.
The insistence on an undertaking from individual employees before extending the benefits of the settlement is not an unfair labour practice. It is a legitimate requirement to ensure that the employees accept the settlement as a whole.
The principle of equal work equal pay is not applicable to the facts of this case. The settlement is a composite package and not a mere wage revision.
Procedural History
The petitioner union filed a complaint of unfair labour practice under Section 28 of the MRTU and PULP Act before the Industrial Court at Thane. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court challenging the Industrial Court's order.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act): Section 28, Schedule II Items 2(a), 2(b), 3, Schedule IV Items 5, 9
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 18(1)
