KINARIVALA RJK INDUSTRIES Vs. WORKMEN EMPLOYED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SPECIAL Civil Application No. 7745 of 1999 was filed by the petitioner Company challenging award dated 20th July 1999 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Labour Court, Ahmedabad in a reference filed by the respondent herein i. e. Union of the employees of the petitioner Company.

(2.) THE said petition came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Applications came to be filed for restoration which also came to be dismissed for non-appearance or for non-removal of office objections. While taking up Misc. Civil Application No. 1508/09, considering the chequered history of number of applications and the fact that the petition is of the year 1999, we found it appropriate to hear the petition finally. However, to complete all formalities, the Misc. Civil Applications are granted and Special Civil Application No. 7745 of 1999 is restored to file on condition that the petitioner pays cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the respondent and also removes all office objections in the applications. Both things be done latest by 1st October 2009. Subject to the above, we have heard the main matter.

(3.) PETITIONER-COMPANY has challenged the award by which the Labour Court granted certain benefits of higher pay to the workmen of the petitioner Company. Counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that previously in the year 1973 as well as in the year 1975, disputes were raised by some of the workmen regarding the same subject matter and such disputes were settled before the Conciliation Officer. He drew our attention to settlement dated 21. 7. 75 entered into between the workmen and the petitioner Company in presence of the Conciliation Officer during conciliation proceedings. He contended that such settlement would bind all workmen including those who were not parties to the settlement in view of scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act and unless and until such settlement has been terminated as envisaged under law, fresh dispute would not be maintainable. He referred to various provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, particularly sections 12, 18 and 19 thereof. He further submitted that wages as envisaged in the settlement dated 21. 7. 75 were paid not only to workmen who are parties to the said settlement but rest of the workmen also.