LexWORKMEN OF M/S HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. & ORS. versus MANAGEMENT OF M/S HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
··~ 307 A . "f WORKMEN OF.Mjs HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. & ORS,. + • . --t·· v. MANAGEMENT OF M/S ttTNtius r AN LEVER LTD. B- January 5, 1984 . [D . .J\. DESAI:'O. CHl,NNAPPA REDDY, AND. A. VARADARA;AN, JJ.] Industrial Disputes Act 1947 .. . Industrial Dispitte-Jurisdiction oTindu~trial trlh1~nal~Deter11!i1,1ed fro1n the o.rdrr of reference-:--Status o,f person 1iot qu~stior1e:J hy en1ployer-TNhunal whe.tlier entit_led · C · 1!!...f~'o !ll()fU decide· as a prelin1i11ary iSsue. Concluded Agree1i1e11t betlt'een Ma1iage111e11t and U11ion-Manafreme11t acting on· the. agl'een1ent for so1ne )-;ea.rs-Mm1agen1ent whethcir ··zater entitled to repudiate ancl, disown dgreen1ent-Dlffere11ce between unilateral rep1_rdiation -and tennination · of agree1nent Indicqted. lil[lustrial dispute.\:-:Adjudication pf-Con<;_ept of res judicata-Wh~th_er apj,li-. ble. The appeJlant-UniOri and the respondcnt-Gomi,any through their c·ommuni- cations dated January .. 24, 1951, April 24, )957 and May .1, 1957 :concluded an. agreen1ent relating to .various it~ms· of industrial disp~tes which inter.Olia ptovided . that the en1ployer had agreed not to contest the issue-whether field foice including_ salesn1e11 were not '\vorkn1en' within .the meaning of the expressiop in the Tndti.strlal DiSputes Act.and that disputes of an ·AH-India n~ture cotild be raised only at t>~lhi. . . Two empioyees of the Respondent·con1pany who were· salesme.n and protected · workmCn with the meaning Of the expl·esSion ln the ·Tndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 and who• were office"· bearers of the union, were · cha·i·gci sheeted and ~fter a disCtp- Jinar.y enquiry their services ~ere terminated. .The appellant-union raised an industrial dispute-contending that the t~rmination of scrviCes of these two workn1en were ille£a! and.iil"val.id, and that the enquiry was equally illegal,"and i~Propc!,. and th"at the action of_ the. emp!Oyer ·w::i.s an act of reprisal. and victimiz3.tion, Qecause of their trade union activities. The Government referred the' industrial _ dispute tO the Indi1strial Tribu.naL . . The e~ployer Contended. that the two Workn1en were not 'workmen' ·within the rrieaning Of the exprCssion·in·the Act-and "that the Government had no jurisdic- tion to refer the dispute to the lndust-fiii.1 -T~ibunal. '1t was further co,ntCnded that·, the s¢rvices of th~-wor,kme·n were tern1inated not by way of p'Unishn1ent but under the contract of service and ihat the di"scip'linary enquiry \vhich was commenced was ~~bsequently dropped. · · ,t ' . . The -appellant-union- however conteitded that the employer wa~ estopped from ~hall_cnging f~e status of the: two workplen \yitbin. the meaning of th'e expression - \ .. D E F G H A •· B c D E F G H 308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984] 2 S.C.R. in the A_ct on account of the subsisting, valid~ conc!Uded agreement between' the parti_es and that in view of thC iward_ Of the lndµstria1 Tribunal, Delhi in 1.D. No. 46/66. The contentions about the existence of the agree·ment and the status of salesmen 'were res judicOta and could nOt be reopened so 109g as the agr~ment w~s in force and operative. The Tribunal rejected the preliminary objections raised on behalf of the union and came to the conclusion_ that the three communications dated January 24, 1957, ·.April 24; 1957 .. and May I, 1957 Ex. W-2, W-"· W-4 respectively did.not spell out a coniplete, concluded -agreen1ent between the parties on the points mentioned therein but it was art inchoate agreement in the stage of negotiations and the employer waS not bound to stand by its Offer made in the communication dated January 24, 1957 · denYing itself the right to contest the status of .the field force including salesn1en as not being workman within the meaning of the Act. The a\vard Of the Industriai Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 46(66 in which it. was held that there Was a concluded agreement between the- parties and therefore the industrial disputes raised therein could not be ·adjudicated at Delhi did not operate as .ra.s judicata because the issue in that a\vard was not directly and .~ub~tantially in issue: in. the present reference.' The Tribunal set dciwn the reference for·fufther hearing. · Allowing the Ap~eal : • HELD : 1. The Tribunal committed a serious error, apparent on record in holding that there was Ii.o concluded agreement between the parties as emerging from Exs. W,2, W-3, and W-4. [329 F] '
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.