LexM/S. JAINHIND ROADWAYS versus MAHARASHTRA RAJYA MATHADI TRANSPORT AND GENERAL KAMGAR UNION AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B MIS. JAINHIND ROADWAYS v. MAHARASHTRA RAN A MATHADI TRANSPORT AND GENERAL KAMGAR UNION AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 30, 2005 [ARIJITPASAYAT ANDC.K. THAKKER,JJ.] Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Jndustrial Dispute-Settlement between C employer and employee-Plea to pass award in view of settlement-Fairness of settlement not questioned-Plea not accepted by the Courts below-On appeal, held: Award to be passed in view of settlement as no issue was raised regarding fairness of the settlement. An award passed by Industrial Tribunal was challenged before High D Court. The reference was remanded by High Court to the Tribunal holding that the Tribunal instead offtxing fair wages had fixed minimum wages. During pendency of the disputes before the Tribunal, workmen entered into settlements with the employers and request was made to dispose of the reference accordingly. The plea was opposed by the Union leaders. Tribunal did not accept the plea of settlement holding the same not being fair and'"fixed E wages which according to it were fair. Writ Petition challenging the same was dismissed by Single Judge of High Court holding that the settlement was not fair. Appeal thereagainst was dismissed by Division Bench of High Court. Hence the present appeals. F G Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. There was no issue raised regarding fairness of the settlement. The Tribunal as well as the High Court came to conclusion without any material that settlements were not fair. There has to be a specific reference in this issue which was not there before the Tribunal and in any event no material was placed or any positive stand taken by any workman. [827-GI National Engineering Industries ltd. v. State of Rajasthan-and Ors., [20001 1 SCC 371 and State of Uttaranchal v. Jagpal Singh Tyagi irr Civil Appeal No. 6505 of 2004 decided on 31st August, 2005, relied on. The Sirsilk ltd. and.Ors. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., II 820 JAINHINDROADWAYSr.MAHARASHTRARAJYAMATHADITRANSPORT(PASAYAT,J.] 821 (19641 2 SCR 448 and The Stafe of Bihar v. D.N. Ganguly and Ors., (1959) A SCR 1191, referred to. 2. Tribunal dealt with two cases by treating them at par with other cases though there was no settlement in those cases. The Tribunal shall deal with these two cases separately. [828-DI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4377 of2005. From the Judgment and Order dated 16.4.2003 of the Bombay High Court in A. No. 652 of2002 in W.P. No. 676of1999. B With C.A. Nos. 4378, 4379, 4380, 4381, 4382, 4383, 4384, 4385, 4386, 4393, C 4394, 4395, 4396, 4397, 4401and4402 of2005. Vinod Bobde, L.Nageshwar Rao, Nikhil M. Sakhardande, Anand Mishra, A.V. Palli and Ms. Rekha Palli for the Appellant. Dr. R.S. Kulkarni, Jamshed Bey, Parmanand Gaur and Ms. Ruby Singh D Ahuja for the Respondents. Sushi! Karanjkar, Anil Padiyar and Venkateswara Rao Anumolu for Intervenor. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. All these appeals have a common matrix in a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the appeals filed by the present appellants which were filed against judgments of learned Sirigle Judge. Factual background needs. to be noted in brief: E F Around 1980 the All-India Transport Employees Association (in short 'association') raised dispute relating to certain general demands including pay-scales, dearness allowance etc. In relation to employees employed with various transporters having establishment all over India. The dispute was G referred by the appropriate Government on 12th August, 1981 under Section IO(l)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') for adjudication. Initially the reference was in respect of 259 employers. Subsequently, by a corrigendum issued on 25.2.1982 116 more employers were included in the reference. A common award was made by the Industrial Tribunal on 12th H 822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A November, 1986. Award was challenged by some of transporters and the union representing some of the workmen by filing writ petitions. By common judgment dated I Ith November, 1992 the writ petitions were disposed of by the High Court remanding the reference to the Industrial Tribunal. The High Court found that the Tribunal instead of fixing fair wages had fixed minimum wages as the wages payable to the concerned workmen. When the matter was B taken by the Tribunal afresh, all th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.