LexK.C.P. LIMITED versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F. /' . , K.C.P. LIMITED ' ' ~ . ..., ·~ ' . . . . '• 'v. ' .-. ' '. THEJ~,RE§~DiNG OFFI.CER,f;\ND o~s. ··-· ,l ,;I. . ' : · . . ·· -~ I . ·t ' ; . ,. . • . [AM. AHMAm;·a., S.B. MAJMUDAR AND B.N: KlRPAL, JJ.] • 1 , • • , •n ·~ . ~ Labour Law: IndustlialDisputes Act, 1947: Sections 2(k) & (p), 2-A and 18(1). Settlement-Otlwwise than in conciliation proceedings-Dispute be- tween employer compal.ly and workmen-Resulted in dismissal of certain workmen-Sole recognised and representative trade u11ion pa,1Jic,ippf~4 ,in conciliation proceedings on behalf of ail workmen including the dismissed ones who co1ttini1ed to be members of trade union-Conciliation proceediitgs ultimately f ailed-Pursua11t to which industlial dispute raised under S. 2(k)-No industlial dispute raised under S. 2-A by dismissed workmen- Dwing pe11de11cy of dispute before Labour Cowt, the said trade union and employer anived at settlemeni:-.Option either to accept reinstatement with co11tinuity in se1vice without back wages or accept a specified lwnpsum amount with other mo1ietmy be11efits-Some dismissed workmen did not approve settlement-But trade union entered into settlement on behalf of all dismissed workmen including the dissenting 011es-Howeve1; Labour Court declined to pass award iii tenns of settlement-Held : settlement was not ex facie, unjust or un.fai1~77ierefore, it was binding even on such dismissed workmen who did not approve the settlement-Hence, Labour Cowt should have passed an award in tenns of settlement and should not have continued the industdal dispute in relation to dismissed workmen who did not approve settlement. Settlement-Othe1wise than in conciliation proceedings-Ce1tain dis- pute between employer company and workmen led to go slow, stdke and lock G out-Disciplina1y action against 29 workmen for va1ious acts of misconduct resulted i.u-tll.ejr dismissal-Subsequently, settlement anived at between employer anti-trade union-Option either to accept reinstatement with con- tinuity in se1vice without back wages or accept a specified lwnpsum amount with other nwnet01y benefits-All stdking workmen other than dismissed ones H reinstated without back wages-Held : In the circumstances of the case, the 148 KC.P. LID. v. PRESIDING OFFICER 149 tenns oj seitlemen't relating to proposed reinstatement of dismissed workmen A without. back wages neither unfair nor unjust. The appellant-Company had an Engineering Unit where it manufac- tured inachinery and employed about 500 workmen. Respondent No. 2 was the only recognised and a representative trade union of all the workmen in the said establishment. Certain disputes between the appellant and the workmen led to go slow, strike and lock out declared by the appellant-Com- pany. Disciplinary action against 29 workmen for various acts of miscon- du~t l'esulted in "their ·m~missal: The respondent No. 2~trade union participated iri the concilation proceedings on behalf of all workmen inclu~ng the ·dismissed ones, which ultimately failed. An industrial dis- pute under SectiOn 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was raised by the r~sl.iondent No:'. 2~trade union on behalf of the said 29 workmen. However, none of the said 29 workmen raised industrial dispute in their • r,. • ·~ I f. ' . ~~ J • • ·-· • individual "capacity under Section 2-A of the Act. B c · ·During the pendency of the said industrial dispute before the Labour D Court the said trade union entered into a settlement with the appellant- Company under Section 18(1) of the Act otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceedings on behalf of all the said 29 dismissed workmen giving option to either accept reinstatement with continuity of service without back wages or accept a specified lumpsum amount with other E monetary benefits. However, 12 workmen out of the said 29 workmen did not accept the aforesaid settlement. The Labour Court·declined to pass an award in terms -of the settlement on the ground that the 12 workmen had not approved the settlement and ·industrial dispute in respect of them would continue and proceed furthe1·. However, out of the said 29 workmen, 17 workmen had agreed to abide by the terms or the settlement and were F reinstated in exercise of'their·option. The 12 workmen were members of the respandent No. 2-trade union who were acting on their behalf and still continued to be members of the union. ;I
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.