MOHANAKUMARAN NAIR Vs. HINDUSTAN LATEX LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE basic question posed in both these Original Petitions is the same and hence disposal of one will in effect be disposal of the other. Facts in the second O.P. alone are sufficient in this judgment.

(2.) A settlement was signed by leaders of most of the trade unions representing the employees of the Hindustan Latex Ltd., Trivandrum (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') and the management of the Company in proceedings initiated by the District Labour Officer, as Conciliation Officer. A copy of that settlement is Ext. P5. The Company prepared and published a seniority list of casual workers pursuant to Ext. P5 and issued a notice calling for objections on the criteria adopted in preparing the seniority list. Ext. P6 is the notice issued by the General Manager of the Company calling for such objections. The direction prayed, for in the Original Petition is to quash Exts. P5 and P6

(3.) THE learned Counsel contends that Ext. P5 is not a settlement under law, in as much as the petitioner -union which raised the dispute and maintained it was not willing to abide by terms mentioned in the memorandum of settlement. But counsel for the Company argued that when a majority of the trade unions signified their assent to the terms of Ext. P5, and since the document was signed in the course of conciliation proceedings, it is immaterial that the petitioner -union did not give assent to it. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel made reference to Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') which says that a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings shall be binding on all parties to the dispute. There can be no doubt that a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings has an extended application and its binding nature is even beyond the parties thereto. Nevertheless, it must be a settlement arrived at during the course of conciliation proceedings. If it is not such a settlement, it has no such binding nature as enjoined by Section 18(3). So the question to be examined first is whether Ext. P5 is a "settlement" arrived at during the course of conciliation proceedings, as per the provisions of the Act.