NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION (APKKM) LIMITED versus SREE YELLAMMA COTTON, WOOLLEN AND SILK, MILLS STAFF ASSOCIATION AND ORS

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 434 · Decided: 18-01-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION (APKKM) LIMITED 
v 
SREE YELLAMMA COTTON, WOOLLEN AND SILK, 
MILLS STAFF ASSOCIATION AND ORS .. ~ 
JANUARY 18, 2001 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
Labour Law: 
C 
Industrial Disputes Act. 1947: Section 19. 
Settlement-Employer entered into settlement with its ministerial staff-
Settlement provided that the ministerial staff shall not make any claim or 
demand for the revision of any qf the terms and conditions covered by the 
settlement or make any demand involving additional financial burden on the 
D mills-Employer also entered into a settlement with its workmen under which 
they agreed to work on a seven-day-a-week working system thereby the 
weekly holiday stood changed and in addition certain increases in emoluments 
had been provided to them-Ministerial staff raised an industrial dispute 
regarding change of weekly holidays and also demanded emoluments at par 
with the mill workers-Labour court made an award in favour of ministerial 
E staff-However, Single Judge quashed the award-But Division Bench set 
aside this order-Correctness of-Held: During subsistence of settlement no 
parties can raise a dispute-But if there is any material change in the 
circumstances an industrial dispute may be raised and reference may be 
made-Hence, Division Bench justified in setting aside the order of Single 
F Judge. 
The employees of the appellant-Corporation fell into three categories 
and they were (i) technical persons and Supervisors, (ii) ministerial staff and 
(iii) workmen. As regards the ministerial staff the appellant entered into a 
settlement, which was to be effective for a period of 5 years. The settlement 
G also provided that the ministerial staff shall not make any claim or demand 
for the revision of any of the terms and conditions covered by the settlement 
or makes any demand involving additional financial burden on the mills. The 
appellant also entered into a settlement with its workman under which they 
agreed to work on a seven-day-a-week working system thereby the weekly 
holiday stood changed and in addition certain increases in emoluments had 
H been provided to them. 
434 
N.T.C. (APKKM) LTD. v. Y.C.W. ANDS. MILLS 
435 
The ministerial staff raised an industrial dispute on the question of A 
change of weekly holiday of the staff members and also sought an increase 
in emoluments at par with the mill workers. The Labour Court passed an 
award in favour of the ministerial staff. A single Judge of the High Court 
quashed the award. On appeal, the Division Bench reversed the order of the 
Single Judge. Hence this appeal. 
B I 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. Undoubtedly, the legal position is that during the subsistence 
of a settlement it is not open to any of the parties to raise a dispute. A 
settlement once entered into between the parties shall be operative until the C 
same is terminated as provided in Section 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 
1947. The object of such a provision is to ensure that once a settlement is 
entered into then industrial peace prevails according cordialities between 
the parties during the period agreed upon. The same position should continue 
by extension of the settlement by operation of law. There is an option given 
to either party to terminate the settlement and such a course having not been D 
adopted in the present case, the parties could not have raised the dispute. But 
in an appropriate case the Government may make a reference under the Act 
on the ground that since the time settlement was entered into there has been 
a material change in the circumstances. 1437-A-C) 
2. Section 19 of the Act limits the variation of settlement but if there E 
has been any material change in the circumstances available in the 
establishment of an employer certainly such a situation cannot be ignored 
altogether to state that the settlement alone should be adhered to, whatever 
be the situation. If such a settlement cannot be worked out in a congenial 
atmosphere between the workmen and the employer it will be difficult to F 
maintain industrial peace and these aspects are to be borne in mind by the 
Labour Court. Such considerations would not be altogether irrelevant in 
giving the relief as sought for by the respondents and to deny the same on 
the short ground of reference not being maintainable. (437-F-Gl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5555of1999. G 
From the Judgment and Order dated I I .09. I 

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