HARI FERTILIZERS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are four appeals filed before us, which arise out of the common order made by the High Court. The third respondent in each of these cases has been a workman on the establishment of the appellant. An agreement was entered into by the appellant and the trade unions in the presence of the Additional Labour Commissioner (Conciliation) on 19.10. 89 settling counter disputes.

(2.) The scheme of the settlement of disputes under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] is identical except that under Section 6- B of the U. P. Act there is no provision corresponding to the Act. The High Court has, therefore, given a finding that this aforesaid provision is applicable in the State of U. P. This view of the High Court appears to be correct. It would only mean that settlement in the course of conciliation reached with the union or the unions representing the much larger interest of the workmen would ordinarily be binding on majority of the unions. Undoubtedly, even a dispute not espoused by a union, but deemed to be a dispute under Section 2-A of the Act, a union can enter into settlement, in the larger interests of the workmen and the Industry.

(3.) In the present case it could be seen that each of the workman had been terminated from service long before the question of closure arose. In fact, the agreement specifically refers to services of seven workmen whose services had been terminated in the year 1988-89 and not with regard to others.