Case Note & Summary
The Union of India and the managements of India Security Press and Currency Note Press, Nashik, filed a writ petition challenging the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal dated 10.10.1995. The Tribunal had allowed the reference of the dispute raised by the workmen's union and held that the notice of change dated 8.10.1991 proposing to increase weekly working hours from 37½ to 44 hours for ministerial staff (clerks, office peons, record sorters, and medical staff) was not justified. The background of the dispute is that the workmen had been working 37½ hours per week. On 20.10.1987, the Government decided to increase working hours to 44 per week based on the Fourth Pay Commission's recommendations. The management issued a notice of change under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 16.1.1988 proposing the increase. However, before the notice could be implemented, a settlement was reached on 11.5.1988 under Section 2(p) of the Act, which maintained the existing 37½ hours per week. Subsequently, on 8.10.1991, the management issued another notice of change again proposing to increase hours to 44. The union raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the 1991 notice was not justified as it sought to alter the terms of the subsisting settlement. The High Court, in its judgment, upheld the Tribunal's award, finding no error of law or jurisdiction. The court noted that the settlement dated 11.5.1988 was binding and continued to operate, and the management could not unilaterally increase working hours during its subsistence. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Settlement - Binding Nature - Section 2(p) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings is binding on all parties to the settlement and continues to operate until replaced by another settlement - The Tribunal held that the notice of change dated 8.10.1991 was not justified as it sought to alter terms settled by the agreement dated 11.5.1988 - Held that the management could not unilaterally increase working hours during the subsistence of the settlement (Paras 1-10). B) Industrial Law - Notice of Change - Validity - Section 9A Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - A notice of change under Section 9A cannot be used to override a subsisting settlement under Section 2(p) - The Tribunal found that the 1991 notice was an attempt to bypass the settlement - Held that the notice was invalid and the management was not justified in issuing it (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the notice of change dated 8.10.1991 proposing to increase weekly working hours from 37½ to 44 hours for ministerial staff was justified in view of the existing settlement dated 11.5.1988 under Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal dated 10.10.1995, which held that the notice of change dated 8.10.1991 was not justified.
Law Points
- Settlement under Section 2(p) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 binds parties until replaced by another settlement
- Notice of change under Section 9A cannot override existing settlement
- Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine validity of notice of change in light of settlement
