J K CHEMICALS LTD Vs. B D BORUDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition impugns the order made by the Industrial Tribunal declining to pass an award in terms of a settlement on the ground that there was non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 62 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957.

(2.) AN industrial dispute between the petitioners and its workmen was referred to the Industrial tribunal for adjudication. The dispute related to pay scales, dearness allowance and other service conditions. The workmen were represented by the 2nd respondent trade union. Pending the disposal of the reference, the workmen formed a committee to discuss with the petitioners a possible settlement. A memorandum signed by 704 out of the 710 workmen stated thus : "we, the workmen of J. K. Chemicals. Ltd. , Thane have formed a Committee to discuss with the company to arrive at agreement. This Committee has our full support. We want this Committee to discuss and negotiate with the Company on issues of wages, gratuity, production bonus, leave, l. T. A. etc. , and arrive at a settlement. " Pursuant to this memorandum the committee of workmen and the petitioners entered into negotiations which culminated in a settlement dated May 31, 1978. Each of the aforementioned 704 workmen signed a memorandum addressed to the petitioners which read thus :

(3.) AN application was then made to the Industrial Tribunal to pass an award in terms of the said settlement. The application was made jointly by the petitioners and those workmen who formed the committee. The Tribunal framed the following issue upon that application : "whether the alleged settlement is arrived at with free consent of the workmen or with coercion and force as alleged ?" Evidence was led. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the settlement had been arrived at with free-will and not under coercion or force. The Tribunal then considered the consequential relief of passing an award in terms of the settlement. It noted that it had been contended on behalf of the petitioners that since almost all except 6 of the workmen had accepted the terms of the settlement and their dues in pursuance thereof, the settlement should be held to be fair and proper and an award passed in terms thereof. The Tribunal said that if the matter rested here there was not difficulty in passing an award in terms of the settlement for it was common ground that the workmen had authorised a certain number from among them to negotiate with the petitioners and as a conclusion thereto the settlement had been arrived at. The 2nd respondent trade union had, however, contended that the settlement had not been arrived at in pursuance of the provisions of Rule 62. Rule 62, inter alia, stated that the settlement had to be signed by " (b) in the case of workmen, either by the President or Secretary or such other officer of a trade union of the workmen as may be authorised by the Executive Committee of the Union in this behalf, or by five representatives of the workmen duly authorised in this behalf at a meeting of the workmen held for the purpose. " The import of the provision was that the workmen had to decide in a meeting to authorised a member from among them as its representative to settle matters with the employer. The implication of the rule was that a meeting had to be held in which such representatives had to be authorised. There was nothing to suggest that the committee here formed by the workmen had been formed in a meeting held for that purpose. Therefore, Rule 62 did not appear to have been complied with. This was a formal aspect. Nonetheless, no award in terms of the settlement as prayed for in the application could be passed.