M/S. HARI FERTILIZERS ETC. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 11 · Decided: 28-07-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

MIS. HARi FERTILIZERS ETC. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
JULY 28, 2000 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
B 
Labour Laws : 
U.P. lndustrial Disputes Act, 1947-Termination of workmen long before 
closure-Subsequent termination of other workmen on closure of factory-
C 
Settlement arrived at by Company with Tr<ide Union for disputes relating to 
later termination-Held, on facts, clauses of the settlement referred to cases at 
the time of settlement and not cases which were far beyond the date of settle-
ment-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
Respondent~workmen were terminated from service by the Appel· 
Iant-Company in 1985. Disputes were pending before Labour Court. In 
1988-89, there was closure of factory of the Company. Seven workmen 
were terminated during this period as a result of closure. Disputes relating 
to these workmen also came to the Labour Court. A settlement was ar-
rived at in the course of conciliation proceedings under the U.P. Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947 by the Company with Trade Union in the presence of 
Additional Labour Commissioner (Conciliation) on 19.10.1989 in respect 
of dispute relating to the seven workmen. The Company filed an applica-
tion before the Industrial Tribunal claiming that award should be passed 
on the basis of the aforesaid settlement. The Labour Court rejected the 
application. The Company filed a Writ Petition before the High Court, 
which was dismissed. The High Court held that since the services of Re· 
spondent-workmen were terminated long before the closure, the Trade 
Unions have no right to settle the disputes on behalf of the Respondent· 
workmen without their consent. Hence the appeals by the Company. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : The various clauses of the settlement entered into by the 
Trade Union with the Company indicate· that it was entered into in the 
wake of the closure of the factury in the year 1988-89. The clauses of the 
11 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
12 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
settlement agreement make it clear that they would only cover those cases 
which were proximate to the time of settlement and not all those which 
were far beyond the date of settlement. Therefore, the High Court and the 
Labour Court were justified in their views - of course for different reasons. 
The Labour Court could now dispose of the matters in accordance with 
B 
c 
law. [13-G-H, 14-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5312 of 1992. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.3.92 of the Allahabad High Court 
in C.M.W.P. No. 747 of 1992. 
WITH 
Civil Appeal Nos. 5313/92, 5314/92 and 5315/92. 
G.B. Pai, Bharat Sangal, Anand Pandey, Ms. Asha Pathak, Ms. Abba R. 
Sharma, K. Misra, R.B. Misra, Sheela Goel, Annam D.N. Rao, Manoj Goel and 
D 
A.K. Goel for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RAJENDRA BABU, J. There are four appeals filed before us, which 
arise out of the common order made by the High Court. The third respondent 
E 
in each of these cases has been a workman on the establishment of the appel-
lant. An agreement was entered into by the appellant and the trade unions in 
the presence of the Additional Labour Commissioner (Conciliation) on 19 .10.89 
settling counter disputes. 
F 
The scheme of the settlement of disputes under the U.P. Industrial 
Disputes Act, 194 7 and the Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7 [hereinafter referred 
to as 'the Act'] is identical except that under Section 6-B of the U.P. Act there 
is no provision corresponding to the Act. The High Court has, therefore, given 
a finding that this aforesaid provision is applicable in the State of U.P. This 
view of the High Court appears to be correct. It would only mean that settle-
G 
ment in the course of conciliation reached with the union or the unions 
representing the much larger interest of the workmen would ordinarily be 
binding on majority of the unions. Undoubtedly, even a dispute not espoused 
by a union, but deemed to be a dispute under Section 2-A of the Act, a union 
can enter into settlement, in the larger interests of the workmen and the 
H 
Industry. 
HARi FERTILIZERS v. STATE [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 
13 
In the present case it could be seen that each of the workman had been 
A 
terminated from service Jong before the question of closure arose. In fact, the 
agreement specifically refers to services of seven workmen whose services had 
been terminated in the year 1988-89 and not with regard to others. 
Ther

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