NOVARTIS INDIA LTD Vs. ASSOCIATION OF CHEMICAL WORKERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this matter, on 11th January, 2005, a notice was issued to the first respondent and the Court directed that the notice must indicate that the matter will be heard and finally disposed of at the stage of admission. Though served, the first respondent has not appeared.

(2.) The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and was formerly known as Sandoz (India) Ltd. , Pursuant to the merger of sandoz (India) Ltd. with Hindustan Ciba Geigy Ltd. in 1997, a Company known as Novartis India Ltd. , the petitioner came to be formed. The petitioner employs a category of workmen known as Medical Representatives in its Pharmaceutical division to whom the present dispute relates. On 29th June, 1992, the first respondent served a Charter of demands on the petitioner which was referred for adjudication by the appropriate Government on 25th September, 1995 under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The first respondent filed its statement of claim on 25th January, 1996. The petitioner filed its written statement on 11th June, 2003. The second respondent filed an application on 13th april, 2004 for being impleaded as a necessary and proper party to the proceedings inter alia on the ground that it exclusively represents all the Medical representatives engaged by the petitioner. The Industrial Tribunal rejected the application. The order of rejection was affirmed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court and in appeal by a Division Bench. Thereupon, applications were moved by 182 Medical Representatives for impleadment which were also dismissed and the petitions challenging the order of the Industrial Tribunal were dismissed by a Learned Single Judge.

(3.) On 18th November, 2004, a Memorandum of settlement was arrived at between the second respondent and the petitioner in the course of conciliation proceedings under section 18 (3) read with section 12 (3) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947. The settlement inter alia provides that the second respondent was representing the permanent Medical Representatives employed by the petitioner at various locations. Clause 1.1. 1 of the settlement which deals with eligibility and coverage, inter alia provides that all Medical Representatives who were on the rolls of the petitioner as on 1st January, 2003 and were receiving the benefit of Dearness Allowance as on that date, shall continue to remain under a salary structure which shall have the benefit of dearness allowance as one of the components of the total compensation and shall receive benefits in accordance with Dearness Allowance Scheme of the Company. An application was filed by the petitioner on 3rd December, 2004 before the Industrial Tribunal and it is averred therein that a settlement has been arrived at on 18th November, 2004 during the course of conciliation proceedings by which all disputes in respect of the revision of the general conditions of service of Medical Representatives employed by the petitioner including the dispute which forms the subject matter of the pending reference before the Industrial Tribunal have been settled. In the circumstances, a prayer was made before the Industrial Tribunal for disposal of the pending reference in terms of the settlement in conciliation proceedings. In support of the application, there was inter alia an affidavit dated 14th December, 2004 of Vikrant Vidyadhar Bhuskute, employed by the petitioner as a Manager, human Resources, in which it was inter alia stated that the second respondent with whom the settlement is arrived, is a registered Trade Union, representing all the employees employed by the petitioner as Medical Representative and that not even a single employee engaged as a Medical Representatives is a member of the first respondent at whose behest a reference has been made. In the affidavit, it was also categorically averred that all the Medical Representative engaged by the petitioner have received benefits flowing out of the aforesaid settlement.