HERBERTSONS LIMITED versus WORKMEN OF HERBERTSONS LIMITED AND ORS

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 15 · Decided: 03-11-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

{ 
) 
15 
HERBER TSO NS LIMITED 
A 
v. 
WORKMEN OF HERBERTSONS LIMITED AND ORS. 
November 3, 1976 
!1Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, P. K. GOSWAMI AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, 
B 
JJ.] 
Ind11s1rial Disputes Act, 1947-S. 18-Settlement under s. 18(1)-Scope 
·of-Union arri1·ed at settlement-Individual workers-If should know impli-
cation.r. 
In respect of certain demands of the workers of the appellant company an 
Industrial Tribunal made its award. 
When the Special Leave Petition of the 
. appellant was pending before this Court the parties filed consent terms 
for 
C 
staying the award. In the meantime the 3rd respondent, a Trade Union, wrote 
to the employer that all the workers who were members of the 2nd respondent, 
also a Trade Union, resigned from that union and joined the 3rd re.~pondent. 
-The employer accordingly recognised the 3rd respondent as the . Trade Union 
representing the workers and de-recognised the 2nd respondent. 
Under s. 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the employer entered into a 
-settlement with the 3rd respondent in substitution of the award pending before 
this Court. When the 3rd respondent sought to be substituted in place of the 
D 
2nd respondent in the Special Leave Petition, the 2nd respondent resisted the 
. application claiming that it had still the allegiance of 50 workmen of the com-
pany. 
But this Court added the 3rd respondent as a respondent. Since the 2nd 
respondent claimed to have some workers on its rolls as members and had not 
. accepted the settlement, this Court passed a preliminary order to the effect that 
"in view of the fact that admittedly a large number of workmen employed by 
the appellant have accepted the settlement is it shown by the 2nd 
respcndent 
union, that the said settlement is not valid and binding on its members and 
E 
whether the settlement is fair and ju.>t." 
Before the Tribunal the 2nd respondent did not lead any evidence to show 
the actual number of its members. The Tribunal recorded its finding that res-
pondent No. 2 had been able to prove that the settlement was not valid and 
binding on its members and was incomplete to that extent. It was contended by 
-tbe 2nd respondent that even if the settlement was binding on the company and 
the 3rd reipOndent representing a large majority of workmen, it was 11ot binding 
·on its members under s. 18(1). 
• 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : The settlement is fair and just. The award of the Tribunal shall be 
-substituted by the settlement and the settlement shall be the substituted award. 
[24Dl 
(!)(a) When this Court called for a finding of the Tribunal it was satisfied 
that if the settlement was fair and juit it would allow the parties to be governed 
by the settlement substituting the award. The wording of the issue sent to the 
Tribunal for a finding clearly shows that there was an onus on the 2nd res-
pondent to show how many workers of the appellant were its members. Since a 
recognised and registered union had entered into a voluntary settlement 
this 
Court thought that if the same was found to be just and fair that could 
be 
allowed to be binding on all the workers even if a 
very 
small number of 
workers were not members of the majority union. [20E-F] 
(b) In the instant case the numerical strength of the members of the 2nd 
·respondent, who are workers of the company, would also have an important 
bearing as to whether the settlement accepted by the majority of the workmen 
is to be considered as just and fair. Not a single worker of the company claim-
•ed before the Tribunal to be its member and asserted that the settlement was 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
16 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1977] 2 S.C.R. 
not fair ~nd just. All the workers of the company had accepted the settlement 
and received the arrears and emoluments in accordance with the same 
[20H] 
(2)(a) The assumption of the Tribunal that the quantum of the membershiP' 
of the 2nd responqent did not call for a finding at all in view of this Court's 
order is incorrect. The Tribunal was conscious that under s. 18(1) the settle-
m;nt was bindini: on the company and the 3rd respondent Union. Yet it exa-
mme~ the question whether the workers voluntarily accepted 
the 
settlement 
knowmg all the consequences, which was a· wrong approach. [21B-C] 
(b) When a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as 
individuals do not come into the picture. It is not necessary that each individual 
worker should know the implications of the se

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