MUKAND LTD. versus MUKAND STAFF AND OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 951 · Decided: 10-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
-
MUKAND LTD. 
A 
v. 
MUKAND STAFF AND OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION 
MARCH I 0, 2004 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
B 
Industrial Disputes Act, I947-Sections JO, 2(s) and 2(k)-Industrial 
Dispute-Reference to Tribunal-Scope of-Whether can cover non-workmen 
also-Reference of dispute between the Company and Staff Association to the C 
Tribunal-Staff Association comprising also of non-workmen-Tribunal making 
award in favour of non-workmen too-Held, not permissible. 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 2(k)-Any person-Meaning of-
Workmen espousing cause of non-workmen-Permissibility of-Workmen and 
non-workmen working in the same grade-Industrial dispute between the D 
Company and Assocjation of workmen and non-workmen-Dispute referred to 
Tribunal-Tribunal granting award in favour of both workmen as well as 
non-workmen-Association claiming that workmen and non-workmen belonging 
to same grade had community of interest and workmen could espouse the 
cause of non-workmen-Held, only workmen entitled to relief from the 
Tribunal-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 18. 
E 
Evidence Act, 1872-Section 31-Estoppel-Plea of-Held, cannot be 
raised when not pleaded-Settlement between Company and Staff Association-
Staff Association comprising both workmen and non-workmen-Settlement 
providing that the agreement was without prejudice to the right of the parties F 
to claim that some staff members were not workmen-Benefit given by Company 
to all-Dispute between parties-Dispute referred to Tribunal-Held, there 
cannot be any estoppel against the Company from claiming that non-workmen 
were not entitled to benefit of award-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 
2(k). 
In 1974 and 1982, the appellant-Company and the respondent-
Association concluded settlements relating to the welfare scheme and 
service conditions of the employees of the appellant. In 1989 the appellant 
entered into another settlement with the respondent-Association in respect 
of certain benefits to be given to the members of the respondent-
G 
951 
H 
952 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 2 S.C.R. 
A Association. As the respondent-Association consisted of several members 
who were, according to the appellant, not "workman" under the provisions 
of the Industrial Disputes Act, the settlement stated that there was dispute 
between the parties as to the status of substantial number of staff not being 
workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act. The settlement was made 
B without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties. 
c 
In 1991, the respondent served a Charter of Demands on the 
appellant. The efforts for conciliation failed and the Government referred 
the dispute between the appellant and the workmen employed under them 
for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. 
Before the Industrial Tribunal, the appellant contended that a large 
number of staff were not workmen under Section 2(s) of the Industrial 
Disputes Act and therefore, no award should be made in their favour. The 
appellant filed the designations and the categories of employees who were 
not workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act. The appellant also 
D contented that the financial condition of the appellant was not sound. In 
E 
F 
• 
the Statement of Claim filed by the respondent there was no averment to 
the effect that there was community of interest between the workmen and 
the non-workmen or that the appellant was estopped from claiming 
exclusion of workmen in view of the settlements between the parties. 
The Industrial Tribunal in its award held that the appellant was 
estopped from contending that the employees were not workmen and 
granted all major demands of the respondent. The Tribunal linked the 
allowances payable to the workmen to their basic pay and de-linked it from 
their respective grades. 
The appellant filed writ petition before the High Court. Before the 
High Court, the appellant filed further material to show that it was in dire 
financial position. The Single Judge held that there was community of 
interest between the workmen and non-workmen and they belonged to the 
same class as they had worked and functioned in the same grades and 
G therefore, the non-workmen could not be excluded from the ambit of the 
Reference. The Single Judge further held that the workmen could espouse 
the cause of the non-workmen. The Single Judge however, disallowed one 
component of dearness allowance, namely, basic linked variable dearness 
allowance. He confir

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