Case Note & Summary
The case involves a letters patent appeal filed by 24 workmen against the judgment of a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dated 28th September 1999 in Writ Petition No.5258 of 1999, wherein the Single Judge rejected the petition in limine. The dispute concerns the implementation of a settlement under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rule 62 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 dated 14.8.1993. The settlement was entered into between the employer, Jaihind Industries Ltd., and its workmen represented by Sarva Shramik Sanghatana, a trade union. The appellants, who were workmen, challenged the implementation of this settlement. The Single Judge, after giving reasons, rejected the writ petition at the threshold. The Division Bench, after hearing the parties, found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, upholding the Single Judge's order.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes Act - Settlement - Binding Nature - Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) - The dispute pertained to implementation of a settlement dated 14.8.1993 between the employer and the trade union representing workmen - The court held that the settlement was binding on all workmen and the writ petition was rightly rejected in limine - Held that the appeal lacked merit (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the settlement under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was binding on the appellants and whether the writ petition challenging its implementation was maintainable.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment of the Single Judge dated 28th September 1999 in Writ Petition No.5258 of 1999 is upheld.
Law Points
- Settlement under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 is binding on all workmen
- Implementation of settlement
- Letters patent appeal against rejection of writ petition in limine
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (03) 117
Letters Patent Appeal No.378 of 2000
Mrs.Neeta Karnik for the appellants, Mr.S.K.Talsania i/b M/s.Sanjay Udeshi for respondent nos.1 to 4
Shri S.D.Muley and others
Jaihind Industries Ltd. and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Letters patent appeal against rejection of writ petition in limine concerning implementation of a settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Remedy Sought
The appellants sought to challenge the implementation of a settlement dated 14.8.1993.
Filing Reason
The appellants were aggrieved by the Single Judge's order rejecting their writ petition in limine.
Previous Decisions
Single Judge of Bombay High Court rejected Writ Petition No.5258 of 1999 on 28th September 1999 in limine.
Issues
Whether the settlement under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was binding on the appellants.
Whether the writ petition challenging the implementation of the settlement was maintainable.
Submissions/Arguments
Mrs.Neeta Karnik argued for the appellants.
Mr.S.K.Talsania argued for respondent nos.1 to 4.
Ratio Decidendi
The settlement under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is binding on all workmen, and the writ petition challenging its implementation was rightly rejected in limine.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard.
This letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment of the Single Judge of this Court dated 28th September, 1999 in Writ Petition No.5258 of 1999 wherein the single judge after giving reasons rejected the petition in limine.
Procedural History
The appellants filed Writ Petition No.5258 of 1999 before the Bombay High Court challenging the implementation of a settlement. The Single Judge rejected the petition in limine on 28th September 1999. The appellants then filed Letters Patent Appeal No.378 of 2000 before the Division Bench, which was dismissed on 3rd March 2005.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 2(p), 18(1)
- Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957: 62
