WORKMEN OF BINNY LTD Vs. BINNY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two writ petitions, one by the workmen of the Binny Mills, represented by the Binny mills Staff Association, and the other one by the workmen of the said Binny Mills, represented by Binny Karmikara Sangha, the settlement" of July 19, 1989 is sought to be quashed with a further direction that the matter be admitted to conciliation and if the conciliation efforts fail, to have the dispute settled by compulsory adjudication. These writ petitions were filed in the years 1989 and 1990. It so happened that, subsequently, another settlement has been arrived at on september 13, 1994 as now brought on record. The said settlement is the one arrived at under section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act for short) and is binding on all workmen including the workmen represented by the petitioners under Section 18 (3) of the said Act.

(2.) EVEN if the writ-petitioners had succeeded in these two writ petitions, the order that could have been passed was to quash the settlement of 1989 and to direct further conciliation proceedings. Even the later settlement of 1994 had been preceded by conciliation proceedings, and it was in course of conciliation proceedings that the said settlement was arrived at. It would, therefore, be purely of academic interest to go into the merits of these two writ petitions.

(3.) THE writ petitions, therefore, are dismissed as having become infructuous. At the same time, it needs to be mentioned that, I have only taken note of the fact that a subsequent settlement has been arrived at under Section 12 (3) of the Act which is binding on all workmen under Section 18 (3) of the Act. It is made clear that any of the clauses of the said later settlement are not gone into in reaching the conclusion that the present petitions have become infructuous.