BHUPENDRA KUMAR CHIMANBHAI KACHIYA PATEL versus DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER GSRTC NADIAD

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 567 · Decided: 07-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
567
BHUPENDRA KUMAR CHIMANBHAI KACHIYA PATEL
v.
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER GSRTC NADIAD
(Civil Appeal No. 2546 of 2018)
MARCH 07, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.18 and Explanation to s.25C
– Appellants-employees joined the services of respondent-State Road
Transport Corporation as “Badali Kamdars” – Settlement between
Union of the workers and Corporation to resolve several issues in
relation to service conditions of the employees – cl.20 of the
Settlement, dealt with the placement and absorption of the “Badali
Kamdars” in the permanent cadre of conductor and grant of time
scale to such workers –Hundreds of “Badali Kamdars” who were
found eligible and fulfilled the conditions in terms of cl.20 of the
settlement were absorbed in the services as permanent employees
on the post of conductor and were accordingly given the time scale
on the expiry of completion of 180 days in the cadre – Dispute
between these employees and the Corporation as to from which
date the benefit to make them permanent and the benefit of time
scale should be granted to such “Badali Kamdars” – Industrial
Tribunal answered the reference in favour of the employees – High
Court set aside the award of Industrial Tribunal –Held: Settlement
once arrived at between the employer and the employees as provided
in s.18 is binding on the employer and the employees – It is not in
dispute that the Corporation and the Union of workers entered into
the settlement – Corporation followed the procedure provided in
cl.20 while granting the employees their permanent cadre and the
time scale of conductor– There is no basis for the appellants to
claim the aforesaid benefit on their completing 180 days of the
service from the date of their initial appointment as “Badali
Kamdars” as against on the expiry of 180 days from the date when
they were absorbed in the permanent cadre – Appellants neither
challenged the settlement nor its applicability – Settlement is binding
on both parties in terms of s.18.
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 567
  567
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
568
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Settlement once arrived at between the
employer and the employees as provided in Section 18 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is binding on the employer and
the employees. It is not in dispute that, the Corporation and the
Union of the workers of the Corporation had entered into the
settlement in respect of various issues in relation to their service
conditions. One such issue was in relation to the absorption of
Badali Kamdars in the permanent cadre of the Corporation.
Clause 20 provides the manner in which it was to be given effect
to by the parties. [Paras 25, 26] [572-F-H]
1.2 It is not in dispute that the Corporation followed the
procedure provided in clause 20 while granting the employees
their permanent cadre and the time scale of conductor. In other
words, all eligible “Badali Kamdars” were absorbed in the set
up and accordingly granted benefit in terms of the procedure
prescribed in clause 20 of the Settlement. [Para 28] [574-A]
1.3 There is no basis for the appellants (employees) to claim
the benefit from the date of their initial appointment as “Badali
Kamdar”. Indeed, there is neither any factual foundation nor any
legal foundation to claim such benefit. The appellants neither
challenged the settlement nor its applicability. In other words,
the legality or/and binding nature of settlement was never
questioned in these proceedings. In this view of the matter, the
settlement is binding on both parties in terms of Section 18 of
the Act.  The concept of “Badli Kamdar” is statutorily recognized
under the Act.  Explanation to Section 25C defines the term “Badli
Kamdar”. [Paras 30, 33 and 34] [574-D-G; 575-A]
1.4 The appellants referred extensively to the evidence
led by the parties to support their submission. The evidence
cannot be appreciated in the appeals filed under Article 136 of
the Constitution. It is more so when the Single Judge and Division
Bench did not agree with the factual findings of the Tribunal and
rightly reversed those findings.  It is binding on this Court.
[Paras 38 and 39] [575-E-F]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
569
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:  Civil Appeal No. 2546
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.06.2016 of the High Court
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in LPA No. 550 of 2016
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 2594-2597, 2556-2592, 2547-2555 of 2018.
Tushar Mehta, ASG, Col

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.