NEEDLE INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NEEDLE Industries Ltd. , Nilgiris, aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, dated July 31, 1995, made in C. P. No. 197 of 1994, has filed the above writ petition to quash the same on -various grounds.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act and has its factory at Nilgiris. The company engages about 595 workmen and it has a recognised union called Needle Makers Union. After negotiations, a wage settlement was entered into between the recognised union and the management on December 11, 1993, under Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). This settlement gave certain benefits to all the workmen of the company in respect of union membership and whether they are parties to the settlement or not and in turn the workmen were expected to give certain assurance regarding production, etc. , and also agreed that they will not make any demand involving additional financial commitments during the currency of the settlement. While so, on December 14, 1993, a letter was sent to the company by the General Secretary of the Labour Progressive Federation Union stating that the proposed new wage revision settlement imposed by the management arbitrarily will not bind them and so they will not accept the same. The said letter was displayed in all the notice boards' of the company. At the same time workmen were informed that if they wanted to have the benefits under the said settlement, they will have to give individual consent to the terms of settlement. 185 workmen gave their individual consent to be covered by the terms of settlement. By letter dated January 20, 1994, the workers numbering 87 indicated to the management in writing that they were not interested in accepting the Section 18 (1) settlement and that the benefits arising therefrom need not be extended to them. However, the management never refused to give the benefits of the settlement under Section 18 (1) of the Act at any point of time to any employee. In May 1994, a request was made by the respondents/workmen stating that the settlement may now be extended to the members of the LPF Union. On May 5, 1994, June 9, 1994, June 14, 1994, July 7, 1994 and August 11, 1994, some workmen among the 87 workmen, who had refused in writing to accept the terms of settlement came forward and entered into Section 18 (1) settlement. The respondents were left out because they did not give their consent to be bound by the terms of the settlement by signing the same. While so, respondents 2 to 15 herein filed C. P. No. 197 of 1994 before the Labour Court, Coimbatore - first respondent herein under Section 33-C (2) of the Act and they submitted that they ought to be paid the revised wages from January 1, 1994 to August 31, 1994. Even in the said petition they did not submit that they are willing to carry out the settlement made under Section 18 (1) of the Act. The management was ready and willing to make payment based on the settlement, provided all terms of settlement were accepted by respondents 2 to 15. The Labour Court, after trial, has proceeded to compute the amounts allegedly payable under Section 18 (1) of the settlement, dated December 11, 1993, from April 1, 1994, onwards on the basis that the workmen were entitled to the said claim because of the advice made by the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour in his proceedings, dated April 28, 1994. Against the said order, the management has preferred the above writ petition.

(3.) HEARD Sri Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 5 and 7 to 15.