LexNATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
NATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD. A v. ST A TE OF RAJAS THAN AND ORS. DECEMBER I, 1999 [S.B. MAJMUDAR, D.P. WADHWA AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.] B Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Sections 10(1) (d), 12(3) and (5), 18 (1) and (3). 19-/ndustrial C Dispute-Conciliation proceedings-Settlement with representative union in conciliation proceedings-Other union not party to settlement seeking reference of dispute-Notification for reference issued-Whether other union can seek reference of dispute-Held, settlement with representative union in conciliation proceedings is binding on all workmen of establishment in the · interest of industrial peace-Recognized union having majority of workers D expected to protect legitimate interest of labour-Under the facts and circumstances, notification for reference of dispute quashed-Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Amendment Act, 1958-Sections 2(000),9-D, 9-E, 9-F- Trade Union Act, 1926-Section 4. Sections JO(/) (d) & 12(3) and (5)-Writ petition challenging E notification of reference of dispute-No existence of industrial dispute alleged-Jurisdiction of High Court-Held, High Court has jurisdiction to entertain writ petition and examine question of Jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal-If there is no industrial dispute, Government lacks power to make any reference-Industrial Tribunal cannot go into question of validity of F reference. Words & Phrases-'Representative Union'-Meaning of in the contµt of the Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Amendment Act, 1958 and in common parlance. Three unions namely, L, Sand Win the factory of appellant made charter of demands and raised industrial disputes; conciliation proceedings were initiated and conciliation settlement/tri-partite settlement was arrived G at with L and S but failure report was submitted in respect of proceedings regarding W. All employees including members ofW accepted benefits under H 87 88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A the settlement. L is the representative union and has majority of workers oit its roll and registered as such under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act as amended by the Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Amendment Act, 1958. W filed writ petition seeking reference of disputes to Industrial Tribunal and during its pendency, Government issued notification for reference of disputes relating to demands raised by W. The fact of said reference was not brought B to the notice of High Court which allowed writ petition directing the State Government to decide question of reference of disputes after hearing the parties. Thereafter, appellant submitted representation to State Government seeking withdrawal of reference and for fresh decision after hearing it. Since representation was not accepted by State Government, appellant filed writ C petition challenging notification and validity of reference which was dismissed by Single Judge and upheld in appeal by Division Bench • Hence this appeal by the appellant-employer. Appellant-employer contended that members of W had taken advantage of benefits under the settlement and thus, there was no dispute pending D requiring reference; that charter of demands of W was almost similar/ identical to the other Unions most of which were covered by the said settlement; that no opportunity was granted to appellant to place its case before State Government despite judgement of High Court; that L is representative union and the said settlement with it was binding under Section E 18(3) of the Act on all workers of appellant; that impugned reference was destructive of industrial peace and defeated the very purpose and object of the Act; that Industrial Tribunal could not go into the question of jurisdiction and also could not examine justness and fairness of the settlement; that charter of demands of W could not be termed as notice under Section 19 of the Act; that W was not representing majority of workers and could not give F notice in view of Section 19 (7) of the Act; and that there was non-application . of mind by State Government in making reference. • W contended that tripartite settlement was invalid as it was entered into on Sunday; that reference could have been made in respect of demands raised by W which were not covered by the settlement; and that settlement was not G entered into during conciliation proceedings and hence was not binding on it. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1. High Court has jurisdic
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.