LexBROOKE BOND INDIA LTD. versus THE WORKMEN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
29
BROOKE BOND INDIA LTD.
v.
THE WORKMEN
July 22, 1981
[A.C. GUPTA, R.S. PATHAK, & 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 2(p), S. Settlement-Meaning of, S.18
( 1), Settlement if binding on "parties to the agreernent''.
Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957, Rule 62 (2) (b), signing of
memorandurn of Settlement-Meaning o.f.
Two Trade Unions of Workmen function at appellant's factory. The
State Government made a reference under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 for
adjudication of an Industrial Dispute between the appellant and its workmen
regarding their demands.
A joint charter of Demands was later submitted by the Unions raising
certain other demands. On behalf of one of the union a negotiation committee
was formed composed of some of the office bearers of that union to participate
in the negotiations for a settlement.
Ultimately a tnemorandum of settlement
A
B
c
D
E
was signed. The members of the negotiation committee of aforesaid union who
F
happened to be office bearers of that union signed the settlement for their union.
The settlement covered the disputes mentioned in the reference and also certain
other disputes between the management and workmen. A joint petition for
passing an award in terms of the settlement was filed before the tribunal.
A few days later the executive committee of the aforesaid Union rejected
G
the agreement on the ground that the agreement had given rise to discontent
among a section of the workers whose problems had not been satisfactorily
solved. The question was whether the agreement was a settlement within the
meaning of section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act from which the Union
could not resile.
H
30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[l 982] I S.C.R.
A
The Tribunal by its award held that the agreement was not a settlen1ent
within the meaning of section 2{p) 1 of the Act. Hence this appeal by special
leave.
It was argued on benalf of the appellants that as the agreement was signed
B
in the manner prescribed by rule 62(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay)
Rules, 1957 and as the requiten1ents of rule 62(4) have been complied with, the
agreement must be accepted as a settlement within the meaning of section 2(p)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, and as such was binding on the Union under
Section 18(1} of the Act.
c
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : 1. In this case it has been found that the office bearers who
signed the agreement were not competent to enter into a settlement with the
company and as such it cannot be said that an agreement was reached between
D
the employer and the workmen represented by the Union. [35 E-F)
E
F
2.
What is binding as a settlement under section 18 (1) of the Industrial
I>isputes Act is an agreement between the employer and workmen and the Tri-
bunal found that there was no agreement between the Management and the
Union.
[35 E-Fl
Workmen of Mjs Delhi·Cloth & General Mills v. Management of Mis Delhi
Cloth & General Mills [1970) 2 SCR 886 referred to.
-
3. The procedure prescribed by either rule 58 of the Central Rules or
Rule 62 of the Bombay Rules pre·supposes the existence of a valid settlement.
But neither rule 58 of the Central Rules nor rule 62 of the Bombay Rules con-
tains anything to suggest that any officer of a trade union who is entitled to sign
a settlement reached between the parties inust be deen1ed to have had the
authority to enter into the settlement.
Rule ~62 only prescribes the form of
G
n1emorandum of settlement and by whom it should be signed and the question
whether the procedure has been complied with will arise only if there is in
existence a valid settlement. [36 F-H]
H
The Sirsilk Ltd. and others v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh & another [1964] 2
SCR 488 referred to.
BROOKE BOND v. WORKMEN (Gupta, J.)
31
Hindustan Housing Factory Ltd. v. Hindustan Housing Factory Employees'
A
Union & Others [1969] Lab. J.C. 1450 approved.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
1980.
Civil Appeal No. 1757 of
From the judgment and order dared I Ith September, 1980 of
the Industrial Tribunal at Nagpur in Reference (II) No. 22/78.
Y.S. Chita/e, R.K. Thakur, O.C. Mathur and K.J. John for the
Appellant
If. W. Dhabe and A.G. Ratanaparkhi for Respondent I.
G.L. Sanghi, V.A. Bahde, A.K. Sanghi and Miss Vasudha
Sanghi for Respondent 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
GUPTA J. During the pendency of a reference before the
Industrial Tribunal at NExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.