Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, employees of Respondent No.1, filed a writ petition challenging the Industrial Court's dismissal of their complaint alleging unfair labour practices. A settlement was signed on 20.7.1997 between the employer and Sarva Shramik Sanghatana, a majority union, under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The settlement required workmen to submit an undertaking in a prescribed format within two weeks to receive benefits. The petitioners, who were not union members, submitted conditional undertakings after the deadline. They claimed discrimination and sought benefits from the settlement's date. The Industrial Court dismissed their complaint. On appeal, the High Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to benefits from the date of settlement because they failed to submit unconditional undertakings within the stipulated time. The court noted that once they submitted unconditional undertakings in August 1998, benefits were extended from that date. The court found no unfair labour practice as the differential treatment was based on the petitioners' own failure to comply with the settlement's conditions. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Settlement - Binding Nature - Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Settlement signed by majority union binds all workmen, but benefits may be conditioned on undertaking - Petitioners, non-members of union, submitted conditional undertakings beyond prescribed time - Held that they were not entitled to benefits from the date of settlement but only from the date of unconditional undertaking (Paras 1-6). B) Unfair Labour Practice - Discrimination - Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - Denial of settlement benefits to non-union workers - Petitioners claimed discrimination - However, since they failed to comply with conditions (conditional undertaking and delay), no unfair labour practice established - Held that once unconditional undertaking was given, benefits were extended from that date (Paras 3-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether non-union workers are entitled to benefits of a settlement signed by a majority union from the date of settlement when they submitted conditional undertakings belatedly.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order. The petitioners were not entitled to benefits from the date of settlement as they failed to submit unconditional undertakings within the stipulated time. No unfair labour practice was established.
Law Points
- Settlement under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Unfair labour practice under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Conditional undertaking
- Discrimination
- Retrospective benefits
