Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns two writ petitions: one by Hindustan Lever Employees Union challenging a settlement signed by Hindustan Unilever Limited with 9 workers on 12th November, 2012, and another by the company challenging an order of the Industrial Court. The union claimed that the majority of workers at the Amli factory had become its members and that it had terminated the earlier Amli Settlement dated 30th September, 2008. The union alleged that the company hurriedly signed a settlement with 9 workers on a holiday to bypass the union. The company contended that the settlement was validly signed in the presence of the Conciliation Officer and that the union did not represent all workers. The court examined the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, particularly Sections 18(1) and 18(3). It held that a settlement under Section 18(1) is binding only on the parties who sign it, and that the settlement signed on 12th November, 2012 was valid as it was signed in the presence of the Conciliation Officer and no fraud or coercion was alleged. The court also held that the concept of 'majority union' does not confer exclusive bargaining rights under the Act. The court dismissed the union's petition and allowed the company's petition, setting aside the Industrial Court's order.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 18(1) - Settlement binding on parties - A settlement under Section 18(1) is binding only on the parties who sign it, not on all workers in the establishment. The court held that the settlement signed by the company with 9 workers on 12th November, 2012, though a holiday, was valid as it was signed in the presence of the Conciliation Officer and no fraud or coercion was alleged. (Paras 10-15) B) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 18(3) - Settlement binding on all workers - For a settlement to be binding on all workers under Section 18(3), it must be arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings. The settlement in question was under Section 18(1) and thus not binding on non-signatory workers. (Paras 16-20) C) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Trade Union Rights - Majority union - The concept of 'majority union' does not confer exclusive bargaining rights under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court held that the union's claim of majority does not obligate the company to negotiate only with that union. (Paras 21-25) D) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Termination of settlement - Effect - Termination of a prior settlement does not automatically invalidate a subsequent settlement. The court held that the union's termination of the Amli Settlement on 16th November, 2012 did not affect the validity of the settlement signed on 12th November, 2012. (Paras 26-30)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a settlement signed by the company with 9 workers on a holiday is valid and binding; whether the union's termination of an earlier settlement entitled it to represent all workers; whether the company was obligated to negotiate only with the union claiming majority.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the union's writ petition (WP 8122/2016) and allowed the company's writ petition (WP 11595/2016), setting aside the Industrial Court's order.
Law Points
- Settlement under Section 18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 is binding only on parties who sign it
- not on all workers
- a settlement signed in the presence of Conciliation Officer is valid even if signed on a holiday
- termination of a prior settlement does not automatically invalidate a subsequent settlement
- the concept of 'majority union' does not confer exclusive bargaining rights under the Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947.
