MAHARASHTRA GIRLS EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs. PRESIDENT MAHARASHTRA KARMACHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Letters Patent Appeal arises from the order of the Learned single Judge dated March 30, 1999 passed in the above petition wherein the Order of the Industrial court was under challenge. The Respondent-Union had complained that the School management had failed to implement the settlement between the Union and the management in respect of the general demands of the employees. The Settlement dated April 12, 1996 under Section 2 (p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 between the parties was sought to be implemented by the union under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. After going into the merits of the case the Industrial Court has declared by its Order dated December 14, 1998 that the management had engaged in unfair labour practice by not implementing the settlement in respect of the concerned employees and directed the Management to cease and desist from engaging in such unfair labour practice. It is borne out from the record that both the parties had signed a Settlement on April 14, 1996 as contemplated under Section 2 (p) and section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is also an admitted position that the settlement was made applicable to all the employees whose names were stated in annexure-A of the Settlement. It is also not disputed that the Deputy Commissioner of labour, Pune had intervened and held a meeting of both the parties as the employees had started peaceful agitations for implementation of the Settlement dated April 12, 1996. Before the said Authority both the parties had once again signed a Settlement on June 21, 1996 whereby the Management had in clear terms agreed to implement the settlement dated April 12,1996 for all the 19 employees and the Union had assured to accept the responsibility to deal with the education Department if such occasion would arise in respect of the Settlement and on the said conditions the Union had withdrawn its agitation. It is most unfortunate that inspite of the said second Settlement to implement the first Settlement, the School Management did not honour its signed statements and compelled the employees to approach the industrial Court, Pune with a complaint of unfair Labour Practices.

(2.) IT is an admitted position that as far as 11 employees are concerned, the Settlement has been implemented. The short case of the school Management has been that in the settlement there was a mistake and "ambiguity" in respect of the seven employees of the School Management who were on its muster roll of the non aided school and, therefore, they were not entitled to get the benefits of the settlement and, therefore, the benefits were not extended to the seven employees. On the other hand the contention of the Union was that the settlement dated april 12, 1996 was applicable to all the employees of the Management, irrespective of the fact whether they were in the section of the school aided or not aided.

(3.) WE have again carefully gone into the whole Settlement. It is clear from the settlement that the parties intended to enter into such Settlement for all the employees and there was no difference or distinction in the mind of the parties that the settlement would apply only to 11 employees and not others. The Union had submitted its charter of demands on behalf of all the employees. It is also significant to note that the names of the employees to whom the settlement would apply are specifically given in the Annexure-A of the Settlement. Therefore, there cannot be any alleged ambiguity or doubt for not extending the benefits of the Settlement to the employees of un-aided section of the school. It is an admitted position that all these employees to whom the settlement is not made applicable are the employees of the school Management and from the Settlement it is clear that the Settlement was applicable even to the remaining employees, who were not given the benefits of the Settlement.