BHARATIYA KAMGAR SENA Vs. SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 1 in a pending reference entered into a settlement with respondent No. 2 was disposed of in Union in the term of the settlement arrived at. The respondent No. 2 is the representative union in the local area.

(2.) The petitioner No. 1 has challenged the said settlement before this Court on various grounds. It is chiefly contended that the settlement arrived at is contrary to Section 115-A of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. It is further contended that the settlement provides for matters not covered by the demands which were referred for adjudication and in this context also is without jurisdiction. My specific attention was invited to some clauses in para 5 as also in para 7.

(3.) On behalf of the respondent No. 1 it is contended that the clauses are reiteration of settlement earlier signed with other Unions including the petitioner No. 1 itself.