Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Management of Caterpillar India Private Limited, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai in I.A.No.2/2024 in O.P.No.18/2023. The Management is a multinational company engaged in manufacturing off-road heavy vehicles. The Management and the Union (Caterpillar India Private Thozhilalar Sangam) had entered into settlements from 2003 onwards, with the last settlement ending on 31.12.2022. On 23.12.2022, the Union submitted its Charter of Demands, and the Management submitted its demands in October 2022. Discussions were held, but meanwhile, 246 out of 326 workmen individually signed a settlement with the Management. The Union raised a dispute for wage revision, which was referred by the Government to the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, and numbered as O.P.No.18/2023. The Management filed a Memo stating its readiness to extend the benefits of the settlement entered into with the majority workmen to the non-signatory workmen who were members of the Union. The Union rejected this offer by reply dated 07.02.2024 and instead filed I.A.No.2/2024 seeking interim relief of Rs.20,000/- per month. The Tribunal allowed the IA, granting the interim relief. Aggrieved, the Management filed the present writ petition. The High Court examined the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to grant interim relief. It noted that Section 10(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 empowers the appropriate government to prohibit the continuance of a strike or lock-out pending adjudication, but does not confer power on the Tribunal to grant interim relief. The Court held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant interim relief as the dispute was not pending before a Conciliation Officer or Board. The Court also observed that the Management had already entered into a settlement with the majority of workmen and had offered to extend the same benefits to the non-signatory workmen, which the Union had rejected. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's order was without jurisdiction and amounted to an error of law apparent on the face of the record. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order of the Industrial Tribunal, and dismissed the interim application filed by the Union.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10(3) - Interim Relief - Jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal - The Tribunal granted interim relief of Rs.20,000/- per month to the Union pending adjudication of a wage revision dispute. The High Court held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant such interim relief as the dispute was not pending before a Conciliation Officer or Board under Section 10(3) of the Act. The power to grant interim relief under Section 10(3) is limited to the period when the dispute is pending before a Conciliation Officer or Board, and not during adjudication by the Tribunal. (Paras 5-10) B) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 18(1) - Settlement with Majority Workmen - Binding Effect - The Management had entered into a settlement with 246 out of 326 workmen under Section 18(1) of the Act. The High Court held that such a settlement binds only the signatory workmen and not the Union or non-signatory workmen. However, the Management's offer to extend the same benefits to non-signatory workmen was a valid offer, and the Union's rejection of the same did not entitle it to interim relief. (Paras 3, 11) C) Writ Jurisdiction - Certiorari - Error of Law - The High Court, exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, quashed the order of the Industrial Tribunal granting interim relief, as the Tribunal had acted without jurisdiction and committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record. (Paras 12-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Tribunal has the jurisdiction to grant interim relief of Rs.20,000/- per month to the Union pending adjudication of a wage revision dispute, when the Management had already entered into a settlement with the majority of workmen and offered to extend the same benefits to the non-signatory workmen.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai in I.A.No.2/2024 in O.P.No.18/2023, and dismissed the interim application filed by the Union.
Law Points
- Interim relief under Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Section 10(3) cannot be granted when the dispute is not pending before a Conciliation Officer or Board
- Tribunal's power to grant interim relief is limited to cases where the dispute is pending adjudication and there is a prima facie case
- Settlement with majority workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 binds only the signatory workmen
- not the union or non-signatory workmen
- Writ of certiorari lies against orders of Industrial Tribunal if there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record.
