BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION REFINERY EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. H N THADANI ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1984 petition afore-mentioned stands supplanted by the 1987 petition in view of a change in the law.

(2.) THE Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. being a respondent in both the petitions has employees in the blue-collar as also white-collar varieties. The petitioner-Union represents the employees in the matter of labour disputes and wage settlement etc. The employer had on its roll a number of workmen who were continued as temporary employees. This apart, the employer wanted to retire the blue-collar employees on their attaining the age of 55 years, whereas the white-collar employees were to be continued in employment upto their attaining the age of 58 years. The refusal to grant permanency to temporary employees and the discrimination made in the ages of retirement between manual and mental workers exercised the minds of employees. They showed their resentment in various ways and on 16-1-1982 the Corporations management came out with a notice proclaiming a restraint upon workmen alleging that these persons had gone on an illegal strike. The petitioner-Union took exception to the notice contending that the resentment of the workmen had been manifested in a spontaneous demonstration which did not amount to a strike. In fact, using the demonstration as an excuse the Corporation had chosen to lock-out the workmen which lock-out was in contravention of the law. Eventually, wiser Counsels prevailed upon both the parties and a settlement was reached between the Corporation on the one hand and its employees represented by the petitioner-Union on the other. The resultant settlement was recorded in the form of a Memorandum and the settlement was described as an instrument falling under section 12 (3) read with sectin 18 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act ). Para 2. 2 of the Memorandum, to the extent relevant, read as follows:-

(3.) THE Corporation in its return contends that the dispute raised by the Union was covered by the Memorandum of settlement. That being the position, a dispute neither existed nor could be apprehended. The demand raised by the Union was perverse and/or frivolous. The refusal to make a reference in respect of such a demand was perfectly justified and could not be said to be an act in excess of jurisdiction. Alternatively, the Government of India could be directed to give a proper reasoning for refusing to make reference, and this, in case its communication dated 12-10-1987 was found to be deficient in any respect whatsoever. A third alternative suggested by the Corporations Counsel is that the issue of demand raised by the Union being precluded by the settlement, be left to be re-agitated before an adjudicatory body if a reference is made to it.