LexTATA CHEMICALS LTD. versus ITS WORKMEN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
J
TATA CHEMICALS LTD.
v.
ITS WORKMEN
March 23, 1978
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.J
535
Industrial Disputes Act 1947-Sec. 2(k) (P), 18-Settlement not arrived
at otherwise than in course of conciliation lvherher binds all workn1t'•1--lt'hft/ier
accepting benefit of a settlement an1ounts to acquiescence-Whether Govt. can
refer a dispute at the instance of a n1inority union.
Industry cu1n region-If no co111parable concern in the region.
A
B
The appellant, a Public Limited Company has its factory at Mithapur in the
C
Stato of (~ujarat. It was carrying ,on its dealings \vith Sangh ·which was a
recognised Union till 25~1~1973. Later on Employees Union came to be
re~
-cognised under the Code of Discipline, in view of the fact that it had 55 per cc.nt
of the total number of employees as its members.
The appellant accorded
recognition to the Employees Union \Vith effect from 25-1-1973.
On 18-6-1973
the Employees Union submitted a charter of demands which, inter alia, included
a demand for dearness
allo,~rance at 100 per cent of Ahmedab<id Cotton
Textile rate.
Meanwhile, on 9-7-1973, the Sangh representing 800 \Vorkmcn
·of the concern also submitted its charter of demands \Vhich included a demand
D
for dearness allowance as paid to the workmen of the Cotton Textile Industry.
The appellant arrived at an agreement ·with the Employees ·Union in respect of
the demands subffiitted by the latter.
It was agreed behveen the parties that
the settlement would remain in force for a period of 3 years. with effect trom
1st January, 1974.
On 21-1-1975 the State Government n1ade a reference to the
Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute raised by the Sangh.
Before
the Industrial Tribunal the En1ployees Union questioned the right of Sangh to
J·aise the derriand \Vith regard to the variable dearness allo\vance as also the
E
right of the Govt. ~o refer the demand for adjudication. Later on; the Employees
Union abandoned its initial stand and supported the demand of the Sangh on
the ground that the appellant had made huge profits.
The appellant contended
that in view of the settlement \Vith the Employees Union, the Sangh was per-
cluded from raising any dispute which \.Vas the subject matter of reference
to the Tribunal. It also contended that as the benefit accruing from the settle-
ment had been and \\.'as being taken bv all the workmen the reference was
incompetent. The demand for variable -dearness allowance v.'as a!so opposed
'hv the appellant on the ground that the- cn1plnyee" were being paid dearness
F
allowance in accordance with the recommendation of the (:entral \Vage Board.
On an examination of the material adduced before the Tribunal it came .to
the conclusion t}lat the appellant Company v.'as a
flourishing and a
highly
inteI?Jated chen1ical complex of long standing ,whose profits were continuou~..ly
rising; that no otQer unit in the Heavy Chemicals Industry in the region could
be favourably compared with the appellant Company;
that the industries in
other parts of. Oujarat which are
included in the list of Heavy
Chemicals
Factories goveuied by Wage Board were paying 100 per cent of the dearness
G
allowance linked to the
Ahmedabad cost of
Jiving index.
The Tribunal
awarded dearness allowance varying from 85 per cent to 95 J'('r cen'_ Qf the
Ahmedabad Textile dearness allowance.
In an appe~l by special leave, the appellant contended :
(1) In view of the settlement ¥iith the Employees Union which covered
the demanfl. for variable dearness allowance and the fact that the
H
benefit accruing from the settlement was. taken by the entire
body of workmen, the reference by the Stale Government as regards
variable dearness allowance was invalid,
and the Tribunal had no
jarisdiction to adjudicate upon the same.
A
B
c
536
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] 3 S.C.R.
Q) The Tribunal has erred in ignoring the industry-cum-region principle·
while fixing the variable dearness allo\vance.
The respondent contended :
<l) The settlement did not cover the demand regarding Yariab!e dearness
allo•.vance sponsored by the Sangh.
(2) In a_n_y event, the said settlement was binding only on the parties
thereto and the Sangh not being a signatory to the settlement was
not bound by it.
(3) It wµs open to a minority Union to sponsor the demand and for the
Government to make the reference on the basis of such demand.
( 4) Since there were no comparable Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.