Case Note & Summary
The case involves a writ petition filed by Hindustan Unilever Limited challenging an award passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Daman, under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The dispute arose from a settlement signed between the petitioner and its workmen on 16 June 2001. The respondent employee refused to sign the settlement and raised an industrial dispute. The matter was referred to the Labour Court, which initially passed a negative award. The respondent filed a writ petition, and this court set aside the award and remitted the matter for fresh hearing. After rehearing, the Labour Court passed an award directing the petitioner to sign the settlement with the respondent by amending a particular clause and extending its benefits to him. The petitioner challenged this award. The High Court held that the award was outside the terms of reference and that a settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act binds only the parties who sign it. The court cannot compel an employer to sign a settlement with a workman who refused to sign it. The Labour Court's direction to amend a clause and extend benefits was beyond its jurisdiction. The High Court quashed the award and allowed the petition.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Settlement - Binding Nature - Section 18(1) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - A settlement under Section 18(1) binds only the parties who sign it; it cannot be imposed on a workman who refused to sign. The Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the employer to sign the settlement with the non-consenting workman. (Paras 4-6)
B) Industrial Law - Reference - Jurisdiction - Section 10(1) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The Labour Court's award directing the employer to sign the settlement was outside the terms of reference, which only required adjudication of the workman's entitlement to benefits. The court cannot compel execution of a settlement. (Paras 4-6)
C) Industrial Law - Settlement - Amendment of Clause - The Labour Court's direction to amend a particular clause of the settlement and extend benefits to the workman was beyond its power; the settlement is a contract between parties and cannot be rewritten by the court. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a Labour Court, in a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, can direct an employer to sign a settlement with a workman who had refused to sign the settlement, and whether such direction is within the terms of reference.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned award of the Labour Court.
Law Points
- Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Section 18(1)
- Section 18(3)
- Section 10(1)
- Section 12(3)
- settlement binding only on signatories
- reference jurisdiction
- Labour Court cannot direct signing of settlement
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (02) 41
WRIT PETITION NO.10760 OF 2018
Mr. R.N. Shah a/w Mr. Afrin Dalal i/b Haresh Mehta & Co. for the Petitioner, Mr. Bennet D’Costa a/w Jignasha Pandya for the Respondent
Hindustan Unilever Limited
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an award passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Daman, under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (Hindustan Unilever Limited) sought quashing of the Labour Court award directing it to sign a settlement with the respondent employee.
Filing Reason
The Labour Court directed the petitioner to sign a settlement with the respondent, who had refused to sign it, and to extend benefits by amending a clause.
Previous Decisions
The Labour Court initially passed a negative award. On a writ petition by the respondent, this court set aside that award and remitted the matter for fresh hearing. After rehearing, the Labour Court passed the impugned award.
Issues
Whether the Labour Court's award directing the employer to sign a settlement with a non-consenting workman is within the terms of reference.
Whether a settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 can be imposed on a workman who refused to sign it.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner submitted that the award was outside the terms of reference.
Petitioner argued that a settlement under Section 18(1) binds only signatories, and the court cannot compel the employer to sign with a non-consenting workman.
Ratio Decidendi
A settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 binds only the parties who sign it. A Labour Court, in a reference, cannot direct an employer to sign a settlement with a workman who refused to sign it, as such a direction is outside the terms of reference and beyond the court's jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
It is, firstly, submitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the award was outside the terms of reference.
A settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act binds only the parties who sign it; it cannot be imposed on a workman who refused to sign.
Procedural History
The respondent employee refused to sign a settlement dated 16 June 2001 and raised an industrial dispute. The matter was referred to the Labour Court, which initially passed a negative award. The respondent filed a writ petition; this court set aside the award and remitted the matter. After rehearing, the Labour Court passed an award directing the petitioner to sign the settlement with the respondent by amending a clause and extending benefits. The petitioner challenged this award in the present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 18(1), Section 18(3), Section 10(1), Section 12(3)
