Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns two writ petitions challenging a settlement dated 5.9.2008 arrived at in conciliation between NRC Limited (the company) and NRC Mazdoor Sangh (the recognised union). The petitioners are the NRC Employees' Union (staff union) and individual workmen employed in the factory. The company ran three plants with a composite factory licence at Mohane, Thane. The individual workmen were earlier represented by Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, but recognition was granted to the Mazdoor Sangh under the MRTU & PULP Act. The staff union represented employees working in the head office outside the factory. The principal challenge was that the settlement was not binding because the mandatory requirements of Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rule 11 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 were breached. The petitioners also argued that the settlement violated Sections 25O and 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act. The court analysed the facts and found that the conciliation officer did not issue notice to all parties, did not hold joint meetings, and did not give the petitioners an opportunity of hearing before forwarding the settlement. The court held that the settlement was void ab initio and not binding on the petitioners. The court also noted that the settlement purported to close the factory and retrench workmen without complying with statutory requirements. The petitions were allowed, and the settlement was quashed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Settlement in Conciliation - Section 12 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rule 11 of Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 - Mandatory Requirements - The settlement dated 5.9.2008 was challenged on the ground that the conciliation officer failed to issue notice of meeting to all parties, failed to hold joint meetings, and did not give opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before forwarding the settlement to the government. The court held that the settlement was not binding on the petitioners as the mandatory procedure under Section 12 and Rule 11 was not followed, rendering the settlement void ab initio. (Paras 1-3) B) Industrial Law - Closure and Retrenchment - Sections 25O and 25N of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Violation - The settlement provided for closure of the factory and retrenchment of workmen without complying with the statutory requirements of prior permission and notice. The court held that the settlement could not override the statutory provisions and was therefore invalid. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the settlement dated 5.9.2008 arrived at in conciliation is binding on the petitioners when the mandatory requirements of Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rule 11 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 have been breached, and whether the settlement violates Sections 25O and 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Final Decision
The court allowed both writ petitions and quashed the settlement dated 5.9.2008 as void ab initio, holding that it was not binding on the petitioners.
Law Points
- Section 12 of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Rule 11 of Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules
- 1957
- Section 25O of Industrial Disputes Act
- Section 25N of Industrial Disputes Act
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act
- 1971
