Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Novartis India Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, employed Medical Representatives in its Pharmaceutical Division. On 29 June 1992, the First Respondent (Association of Chemical Workers) served a charter of demands, which was referred for adjudication on 25 September 1995 under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The First Respondent filed its statement of claim on 25 January 1996, and the Petitioner filed its written statement on 11 June 2003. The Second Respondent filed an application on 13 April 2004 for impleadment, claiming it exclusively represented all Medical Representatives. The Industrial Tribunal rejected the application, and the order was affirmed by a Learned Single Judge and a Division Bench. Subsequently, 182 Medical Representatives moved for impleadment, which was also dismissed. On 18 November 2004, a Memorandum of settlement was arrived at between the Second Respondent and the Petitioner in conciliation proceedings under Section 18(3) read with Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The settlement provided that the Second Respondent represented permanent Medical Representatives and covered eligibility and salary structure. The Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the Industrial Tribunal's order refusing to recognize the settlement and continuing adjudication. The High Court held that the settlement under Section 18(3) read with Section 12(3) is binding on all workmen in the establishment, including those represented by the First Respondent, and the Tribunal cannot ignore it. The Court allowed the petition, quashed the Tribunal's order, and directed the Tribunal to dispose of the reference in light of the settlement.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 18(3) read with Section 12(3) - Binding Nature of Settlement - Settlement arrived at in conciliation proceedings is binding on all workmen in the establishment, not just members of the signatory union - The Industrial Tribunal cannot ignore a valid settlement and proceed with adjudication of demands - Held that the settlement is binding on all workmen and the Tribunal must give effect to it (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a settlement arrived at under Section 18(3) read with Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 between the employer and a union representing a majority of workmen is binding on all workmen in the establishment, including those represented by another union, and whether the Industrial Tribunal can ignore such a settlement and continue adjudication of a reference.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of the Industrial Tribunal dated 13th April 2004, and directed the Tribunal to dispose of the reference in light of the settlement dated 18th November 2004.
Law Points
- Settlement under Section 18(3) read with Section 12(3) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 is binding on all workmen in the establishment
- not just members of the signatory union
- Industrial Tribunal cannot ignore a valid settlement and proceed with adjudication of demands
- Writ petition maintainable against order of Industrial Tribunal refusing to recognize settlement
