Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Paranjape Metal Shapers Pvt. Ltd., challenged an order dated 31st December 2009 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in pending Reference (IT) No.2 of 2005, which rejected the petitioner's application to pass an award in terms of a settlement dated 26th May 2008. The dispute pertained to revision of pay scales and other service conditions. The petitioner had filed an application seeking that the settlement be held fair, legal and proper, supported by affidavits and documents. The respondent union opposed the application. The Tribunal rejected the application without considering the merits of the settlement. The High Court held that the Tribunal must consider whether the settlement is fair, legal and proper, even if not agreed by all workers, and that the rejection effectively ended the matter without giving full opportunity to the parties. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Tribunal to decide the application afresh after hearing both parties.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Settlement - Fairness - Industrial Tribunal must consider whether a settlement is fair, legal and proper before rejecting an application to pass award in terms thereof, even if not agreed by all workers - The Court held that the Tribunal ought to have considered the settlement's fairness and legality rather than summarily rejecting the application (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in rejecting the employer's application to pass an award in terms of a settlement dated 26th May, 2008 without considering whether the settlement was fair, legal and proper
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 31.12.2009 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Industrial Tribunal to decide the application afresh after hearing both parties and in accordance with law. Rule made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Industrial Tribunal must consider whether a settlement is fair
- legal and proper before rejecting an application to pass award in terms thereof
- even if not agreed by all workers
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (04) 24
Writ Petition No.939 of 2010
Mr. A. D. Patwardhan with Mr. T. R. Yadav, for the Petitioner; Mr. Mahesh Thorat, for the Respondent
Paranjape Metal Shapers Pvt. Ltd
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order of Industrial Tribunal rejecting application to pass award in terms of settlement
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside the impugned order and direct the Tribunal to consider the application afresh
Filing Reason
The Tribunal rejected the petitioner's application to pass an award in terms of a settlement dated 26th May 2008 without considering whether the settlement was fair, legal and proper
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Tribunal passed the impugned order dated 31.12.2009 in Reference (IT) No.2 of 2005
Issues
Whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in rejecting the application to pass award in terms of settlement without considering its fairness, legality and propriety
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the settlement was fair, legal and proper and supported by affidavits and documents
Respondent union opposed the application
Ratio Decidendi
The Industrial Tribunal must consider whether a settlement is fair, legal and proper before rejecting an application to pass an award in terms thereof, even if not agreed by all workers, as such consideration is necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute.
Judgment Excerpts
In such a situation like this when the parties are disputing and/or raising the issue with regard to the revision of pay scale, the Court/Tribunal must give consideration that whether such settlement is fair, legal and proper, or for proper adjudication, even otherwise, it is also necessary for the Tribunal to consider what should be the revision and or revision arising out of settlement or connected with the same should be fair, legal and proper, even to settle the dispute so raised.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed an application before the Industrial Tribunal in pending Reference (IT) No.2 of 2005 to pass an award in terms of settlement dated 26th May 2008. The Tribunal rejected the application by order dated 31.12.2009. The petitioner challenged this order by way of Writ Petition No.939 of 2010 before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
