Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a partnership firm, challenged an order of the Industrial Court, Mumbai dated 18/03/1998, which permitted respondent no.1 (a workman) to agitate the issue of closure of the establishment. The background is that earlier, Complaint (ULP) No. 743 of 1991 was filed by the Bombay Labour Union on behalf of the workmen, including respondent no.1. That complaint was disposed of for non-prosecution as settled out of court, and all workmen except respondent no.1 accepted their legal dues from the company. The Industrial Court, while passing the impugned order, observed that except one workman (the complainant), all others had accepted their legal dues. The learned judge passed the order because there was no liberty reserved to agitate the issue again, as the withdrawal was unconditional. The High Court held that the relationship of employer and employee is founded on a contract. Once the majority of workers accepted the settlement and legal dues, knowing the consequences of closure, there is no case to permit one worker to re-agitate the issue. The court noted that in labour matters, total consent is difficult, but once a complaint is filed through the union and settled, and the majority acted upon it, the individual cannot challenge the closure on merits. The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and dismissed the complaint.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Settlement - Res Judicata - Once a complaint filed by a union is disposed of as settled out of court and the majority of workmen accept legal dues, an individual workman cannot re-agitate the closure issue on merits. The employer-employee relationship is contractual, and acceptance of benefits by the majority binds the minority. (Paras 1-3)
B) Labour Law - Maintainability - Individual Complaint - An individual workman who did not accept legal dues cannot challenge the closure action of the management after the union complaint was unconditionally withdrawn and settled. The Industrial Court erred in not deciding the preliminary objection of maintainability. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a single workman can re-agitate the issue of closure of an establishment after the majority of workmen have accepted legal dues and the union complaint was withdrawn as settled out of court.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order of the Industrial Court dated 18/03/1998, and dismissed the complaint.
Law Points
- Labour law
- settlement
- res judicata
- maintainability
- closure
- individual workman
- majority settlement
- contract of employment
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (04) 98
WRIT PETITION NO. 2095 OF 1998
Mr. R.S. Pai with Ms. Pallavi Dedna i/by Mr. Sanjay Udeshi for Petitioner, Mr. Mayur D. Nagle for Respondent No.1
Shri G.B. Hingurani, Partner, M/s. Fashion Apparels
Mr. Vinayak Narayan Govekar & Shri V.L. Kamble, Member, Industrial Court
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an order of the Industrial Court permitting re-agitation of closure issue by a single workman.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the Industrial Court order dated 18/03/1998 and dismissal of the complaint.
Filing Reason
The Industrial Court allowed the workman to agitate the closure issue despite a prior settlement and acceptance of legal dues by majority workmen.
Previous Decisions
Earlier Complaint (ULP) No. 743 of 1991 filed by Bombay Labour Union was disposed of for non-prosecution as settled out of court. All workmen except respondent no.1 accepted legal dues.
Issues
Whether a single workman can re-agitate the issue of closure after a union complaint was unconditionally withdrawn as settled and majority workmen accepted legal dues.
Whether the Industrial Court erred in not deciding the preliminary objection of maintainability.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the complaint was not maintainable as the earlier complaint was settled and all other workmen accepted legal dues.
Respondent workman submitted that the closure action was on merits and amendments in the complaint allowed re-agitation.
Ratio Decidendi
Once a complaint filed by a union is disposed of as settled out of court and the majority of workmen accept legal dues knowing the consequences of closure, an individual workman cannot re-agitate the closure issue on merits. The employer-employee relationship is contractual, and acceptance of benefits by the majority binds the minority.
Judgment Excerpts
Admittedly, except the Complainant, all the other workers have settled the matter and accepted the legal dues, knowing fully the effect of the closure.
In my view, the relationship of the employer and the employees is always on a foundation of a contract.
If the parties entered into the agreement and/or settlement and proceed accordingly and basically acted upon the same by majority of the workers, as well as, the employers, I see there is no reason now to permit such Complainant to re-agitate the closure issue on merits.
Procedural History
Complaint (ULP) No. 743 of 1991 filed by Bombay Labour Union was disposed of as settled out of court. Subsequently, respondent no.1 filed a complaint challenging closure. The Industrial Court passed an order on 18/03/1998 allowing re-agitation. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
