M/S SAVITA CHEMICALS (PVT.) LTD. versus DYES AND CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION AND ANR.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 488 · Decided: 11-12-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
M/S SA VITA CHEMICALS (PVT.) LTD. 
v. 
DYES AND CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 11, 1998 
B 
[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
Labour laws: 
Trade unions-Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union & Prevention 
C of Unfair Labour Practices Act, I97 I, Sections 24(/)(a), 6I (!) and 44-
Settlement between the management and the Union-Notice of strike during 
the period of settlement-Format of notice-Held, format as prescribed under 
Form I of Rule 22 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union & Prevention 
of Unfair Labour Practices Rules-Four basic requirements of Form I has to 
D be fa/filled for issuing strike notice-Typing of the notice in the same sequence 
as prescribed in Form I or referred to in Section 24(I) is not a basic 
requirement-Mode of service of notice is also not a basic requirement-On 
facts, held all the basic requirements of Form I were complied with in the 
notice in question--Contrary finding arrived at by the labour Court was 
patently illegal and was rightly reversed by the High Court in exercise of its 
E jurisdiction under Article 227-Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union & 
Prevention of Unfair labour Practices Rules, I975, Rule 22 read with Form 
I-Maharashtra labour Court (Practice and Procedure Rules I975, Rules 
50 and 5I. 
F 
Words and phrases-Phrase "covered by the settlement"-Meaning 
of-In the context Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union & Prevention of 
Unfair Labour Practices Act, I97I. 
Constitution of India-Article 227-Jnterference under-Scope of-
Where the findings were patently erroneous and dehors the factual and legal 
G position on record-Held, interference was proper and justified. 
Respondent Union had made a charter of demands to the appellant and 
a settlement was arrived at before the Conciliation Officer between the 
parties which was valid for a particular period. The settlement provided that 
H the then existing practice of granting 12. days privilege leave for each 
488 
SAVITA CHEM. (PVT.)LTD. v. DYES AND C.W.U. 
489 
completed 240 days' work per year and one day more for additional 12 days A 
of work beyond 240 days was to continue and in all other respects, the 
provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 and the existing rules were to apply. 
During the operation of the settlement the respondent-Union gave a notice 
of strike inter alia on the ground that there were illegal changes brought 
about in the matter of computing privilege leave. The appellant filed an 
application before the Labour Court seeking a declaration that the respondent- B 
Union had gone on an illegal strike under Section 24(1)(i)(a) to (i) of the 
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union & Prevention of Unfair Labour 
Practices Act, 1971 (the "Act"). Labour Court came to the conclusion that 
the strike notice issued by the respondent-Union was not required by law and 
was contrary to the provisions of Section 24(l)(i) of th~ Act, and declared C 
the strike as illegal. Respondent-Union challenged the order of the Labour 
Court by filing a writ petition before the High Court, which set aside the 
order of the Labour Court and held that the strike was not illegal. Hence 
this appeal •. 
It was contended by the appellant that the notice of st,rike was violative D 
of Section 24(1)(a) of the Act as the same was not in proper form and was 
contrary to Rules 50 and 51 of the Maharashtra Labour Courts (Practice 
and Procedure,) Rules, 1975. It was also contended by the appellant that the 
said ground of strike was covered by the settlement. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. The Labour Courts (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 1975 
in Maharashtra are for guidance of the Labour Courts and for regulating 
E 
the practice and procedure of those courts. Thus, Rules 50 and 51 which are 
part and parcel of these Rules, cannot have anything to do with format of the F 
notice of strike which a Union has to give to the management as per Section 
24(1)(a) of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of 
Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. Prescribed format for the purpose of the 
said provision will necessarily be as per Form I as was laid down by Rule 
22 of the Rules framed by the State Government. Format I shows that the 
notice must contain, amongst others, the following basic requirements: 
G 
(506-D-Ef 
(i) the name of the trade union giving notice, its address and the date 
of the notice; 
(ii) the name of the employer and full address of the undertaking for H 
490 
S

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