LexP. VIRUDHACHALAM AND ORS. versus THE MANAGEMENT OF LOTUS MILLS AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
P. VIRUDHACHALAM AND ORS. v. THE MANAGEMENT OF LOTUS MILLS AND ANR. DECEMBER 9, 1997 [S.B. MAJMUDAR ANO M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.) Labour Law: I11dust1ial Disputes Act 1947 : Sections 12(3) and 18(3)--Gosure of mill-Payme11t of lay-off com- pe11sation-lndustrial dispute-Settlement during co11ciliation proceed- i11g:s-Lay-off compensation resDicted to first folty-five days-Four out of five u11io11s signing the settlement-Bindi11g nature of--Held-Bindi11g on all par- A B c ties to the dispute-Including all workmen, present and future--Bi11ds even D the members of no11-signato1y union. Section 25 C.......Proviso--S ettleme11t between management and unions-Lay-off compensation-Resllicted to first forty-five days Settlemelll during conciliation-Binding on workmen--Independrnt agreement between individual workman and employe,...-.Not necessmy-Claim by workman under E Section 33(c)(2)-Not maintainable. Sections JO & 36--Collective bargainin~Act of union representing workmen-Settlement dwing conciliation-Binds even its non-members. Section 25(J)(l)-fllte1pretation of-Provisions of Chapter VA-Not F intended to override other provision of the Industrial Disputes Act itself Words and Phrase:s-'Settlement; 'Agreement'-Meaning of-Section 25(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. At industrial dispute arose with regard to payment of lay-off com pen- G sation, between the management of Lotus Mill and its workmen, for the period during which the mill remained closed. In the course of conciliation proceedings, a settle.neut was arrived at between the management and five unions representing all the workmen, in terms of which lay-off compensation was to be paid in instalments after three years. The workers demanded im- mediate payment and the matter was again referred to conciliation, in the H 263 264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A course of which, a fresh settlement was reached which was signed by four out of the five unions. The settlement restricted the payment of lay-off compen- sation to the workmen to 67% of the permissible statutory lay-off compensa- tion payable. B c The appellant-workmen filed an application under Section 33(c)(2) before the Labour Court for computation oflay-off compensation payable to them under Section 25C, on the ground that their union had not signed the settlement. The Labour Court proceeded to compute the amounts on the basis that the appellants had not individually entered into any agreement with the management, and directed the respondent No.1 to pay the same. The respondent No.1 challenged the order of the Labour Court byway of a writ petition. The High Court held that the settlement arrived at during conciliation proceedings was binding on all workmen who were parties to the industrial dispute and allowed the petition, but granted a certificate under Article 133(1) of the Constitution of India for leave to prefer the present D appeal. The appellants contended that the right to receive statutory lay-off compensation cannot be diluted by any settlement during conciliation in the absence of an independent agreement between the employer and individual workmen. It was further contended that Chapter VA of the Industrial Dis- E pute Act is a complete code in itself and overrides any inconsistent provisions in any other law including those in any other part of the Act as well. Dismissing the appeal, this Court F HELD : 1. A written settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings is binding not only on the signatories thereto but on all parties to the industrial dispute. [272-C-DJ Barauni Reft11e1y Pragatisheel Shramik Pwishad v. l11dia11 Oil C01pora- G tion Ltd. and On·., AIR (1990) SC 1801, relied on. 2. All settlements, whether arrived at outside or during conciliation proceedings, are based on written agreements. Thus all settlements are necessarily based on written agreements but all agreements are not 'settlements' until the relevant prescribed procedures are followed. H [2730G-H; 274-A) -- >.- :~ ,. P. VIRUDHACHALAM v. MANAGEMENT OF LOTUS MILLS 265 3. A 'settlement' between an employer and employees is placed on a A ·. · higher pedestal than an award passed after adjudication. [270-B] Herbe1tsons Ltd. v. The workmen of Herbensons Ltd. and 01~·., AIR (1977) SC 322, relied on. 4. A settlement arrived at during conciliation between the manage- B ment and onions, is binding not only on the members of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.