LexI.T.C. LTD. WORKERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANR. versus THE MANAGEMENT OF I.T.C. LTD. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I.T.C. LTD. WORKERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANR.
A
v.
-;
THE MANAGEMENT OF I.T.C. LTD. AND ANR.
--
JANUARY 29, 2002
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ.]
B
Labour Laws:
"f
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 12(3)-Settlement in the course
of conciliation proceeding-Challenge-Scope of-Platinum Jubilee Pension c
~
Scheme-Life time pension to employees retiring on or after a prescribed
date-Claim for extension of the scheme to all the retired employees-Rejected
by Industrial Tribunal and High Court-On appeal, Held, settlement arrived
at in the course of conciliation proceedings can be ignored only if it is
demonstrably unjust, unfair or malafide---Extension of pension scheme to D
· employees retiring on or after a particular date, not palpably unjust or unfair-
...
Industrial Tribunal as an a!{judicator not entitled to extend the benefit of
pension scheme to all the employees by substituting the terms of the settlement-
>'
Tribunal and High Court justified in upholding the pension scheme-
Constitution of India, 1950-Articles, 226 and 227.
E
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14-Whether the validity of cut off
date 24.8.86 prescribed under settlement for the purpose of extending life
pension could be tested in the light of Art., 14.
...
Respondent-Company introduced platinum jubilee pension scheme
.,i
for its employees. A settlement was arrived under Section 12(3) of the F
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the course of conciliation proceedings and
it was agreed that the said pension scheme be made part of service
conditions of employees. The said pension scheme entitled workmen who
retired on or after the prescribed date to get life time pension. Appellants
raised industrial dispute contending that the extension of the benefit of G
pension scheme only to employees who retire on or after prescribed date
was illegal and unjust. Industrial Tribunal answered the reference in
~ favour of the management and held that workmen who retired before the
prescribed date were not entitled to the benefits under the scheme. On
appeal, High Court upheld the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal.
711
H
712
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2002] 1 S.C.R.
A Hence the present appeal.
On behalf of appellants it was contended that all the workman
drawing pension under the company's Rules belong to one class and there
could not be sub-classification amongst them and thus the prescription of
cut-off date for extending the benefit of pension scheme which has the
B effect of denying greater benefits under the scheme to the workmen who
retire before that date was arbitrary, discriminatory and unjust.
On behalf of respondent-company it was contended that the
settlement which was entered into under Section 12(3) of the Industrial
c
Disputes Act as a result of conciliation proceeding was binding on all the
workmen and no workmen much less any individual workman or group
of workmen could challenge the same especially after the recognised union
which espoused the cause of workmen and participated in the proceeding
before the Tribunal chose to accept the award; that when the settlement
as a whole has not been attacked as fair or malajide, it was not open to
D the union much less to the individual workmen who were not parties to
assail one clause in the settlement dealing with the pension.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : I. The facts on record do not establish that the platinum
E jubilee pension scheme settlement was palpably unjust, unfair or vitiated
by any malajides. Thus, there is no legal infirmity in the award of the
Tribunal which has been affirmed by the High C'lurt. [727-BC)
ITC Ltd v. State of Bihar, (1997) 1 PL.JR 934, approved.
F
2.1. The settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation
proceedings carries a presumption that it is just and fair. It becomes
binding on all the parties to the dispute as well as the other workmen in
the establishment to which the dispute relates and all other persons who
may be subsequently employed in that establishment. The individual
G
employee cannot seek to wriggle out of the settlement merely because it
does not suit him. A settlement which is a product of collective bargaining
is entitled to due weight and consideration, more, so, when a settlement is
arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings. The settlement can
only be ignored in exceptional circumstances viz., if it is demonstrably
unjust, unfair orExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.