LexMANAGEMENT OF KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ETC. versus KSRTC STAFF AND WORKERS FEDERATION AND ANR. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
~ ~ ~ ' MANAGEMENT OF KARNATAKA STATE ROAD A TRANSPORT CORPORATION ETC. v. KSRTC STAFF AND WORKERS' FEDERATION AND ANR. ETC. B FEBRUARY 18, 1999 [S.B. MAJMUDAR AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.) Labour Laws-Industrial Disputes Act 1947, ss. 2(p), 18(I), 19(2)-- c Road Transport Corporation Act 1950, ss. 3, 34 and, 45(2)(C)-Respondent Federation elected as recognised union and sole baTgaining agenHn a set- tlement with Federation Appellant Corporation agreeing to deduct subscription of members of unions affiliated to Federation from their wages-System known as Pay Roll Check Off Facility-Settlement coterminus with 1:ecognition accorded to Federation-Recognition expiring in July 1996 but no fresh D referendum held-Meanwhile for a different set of demands concerning service conditions of employees Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entered into between Corporation and Federation-State Government while approving MOU by memo of September 10, 1993 subject to condition that Corporation withdraw the Pay Roll Check Off facility-Accordingly, Corporation by E separate order withdrawing facility-High Court allowing petition of Federa- tion challenging both orders-Held, Government memo was ultra vires and uncalled for; MOU had nothing to do with Pay Roll Check Off facility already made available by binding settlement holding the field-Further held, earlier settlement continued till fresh settlement was arrived at; Corporation's order was violative of S. 19(2) of the ID Act. F The appellant Corporation, formed under s. 3 of the Road Transp~ Corporation Act, 1950 entered into a Memorandum of Settlement on July 28, 1988 with the respondent Federation, which was duly elected as the recognised union of the workers and their sole bargaining agenL Under the settlement it was agreed that the Corporation shall deduct the sub· G scription of the members of the unions affiliated to the respondent federa· tion from their wages on obtaining individual authorisations. This was known as the Pay Roll Check Off facility. The settlement was agreed to be followed till the recognition accorded to the Federation lasted or until both parties terminated the terms by mutual consent earlier. H 733 734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R. A The respondent Federation continued to be the recognised Union till " July 16, 1996 but no referendum was held thereafter. Meanwhile on May 10, 1993 consequent upon a charter of demands concerning the service conditions of the employees, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was reached between the Corporation and the Federation. By its memo B dated September 10, 1993, the state government accorded its approval to the MOU subject to the condition that the Corporation should not take the responsibility of collecting monthly subscriptions from employees on behalf of the Federation. Accordingly on September 21, 1993 the Corpora- ~ ti on by a notification withdrew the Pay Roll Check off facility. c The respondent Federation challenged both the orders by a writ petition which was allowed by a Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the Corporation's appeal. Before this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant Cor- D poration that with the recognition of the Federation having expired in 1996, the settlement of 1988 could not survive thereafter; that on account of later settlements and the State Government directing the withdrawal of the Pay Roll Check OIT facility, the earlier right following from the settlement of 1988 did not survive. For the Federation, it was pointed out that till the agreement of 1988 was legally terminated as required by s. 19(2) of the E Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) it remained binding on the Cor- poration. Moreover, till a fresh settlement on the topic was entered into, the binding effect of the 1988 settlement would not come to an end. Dismissing the appeals, this Court F HELD : 1.1. The Government order dated September 10, 1993 was neither legal nor valid and was totally uncalled for. The Memorandum of .. Understanding dated May 10, 1993 had nothing to do with the Pay Roll Check Off facility already made available to the Union and was holding the field by the time of the Government Order. [750-D] G ' 1.2. The unilateral termination of the settlement by the Corporation was ultra vires the powers of the Corporation under s. 19(2) ID Act. The recognition accorded to t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.