http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: M/S HARI FERTILIZERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P.  & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       28/07/2000

BENCH: Shivaraj V. Patil, S.R.Babu

JUDGMENT:

     J  U D G M E N T       RAJENDRA BABU, J.  :

     There are fourappeals filed before us, which arise out of  the  common  order made by the High  Court.   The  third respondent  in each of these cases has been a workman on the establishment  of  the appellant.  An agreement was  entered into  by the appellant and the trade unions in the  presence of  the  Additional  Labour Commissioner  (Conciliation)  on 19.10.89 settling counter disputes.

     The  scheme  of the settlement of disputes  under  the U.P.Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947   and  the   Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] is identical  except  that under Section 6-B of the  U.P.   Act there  is  no provision corresponding to the Act.  The  High Court  has,  therefore, given a finding that this  aforesaid provision  is applicable in the State of U.P.  This view  of the  High  Court appears to be correct.  It would only  mean that  settlement in the course of conciliation reached  with the  union  or  the  unions  representing  the  much  larger interest  of  the  workmen would ordinarily  be  binding  on majority  of  the unions.  Undoubtedly, even a  dispute  not espoused  by  a  union,  but deemed to be  a  dispute  under Section  2-A of the Act, a union can enter into  settlement, in the larger interests of the workmen and the Industry.

     In  the present case it could be seen that each of the workman  had  been terminated from service long  before  the question   of  closure  arose.   In  fact,   the   agreement specifically  refers  to  services of  seven  workmen  whose services  had  been terminated in the year 1988-89  and  not with regard to others.

     There  are  three  crucial clauses  in  the  agreement arising  from  interpretation  Clause (7), Clause (10)  and Clause  (14).  Clause (7) is to the effect that services  of the  seven workmen terminated in the year 1988-89 and  whose disputes  are  pending  before the Industrial  Tribunal  (1) Allahabad  certain  terms for settlement were made.  If  the closure  compensation  is  more than Rs.15,000/-  then  that amount  shall  be payable and if such compensation  is  less than the said amount of Rs.15,000/- then lesser amount shall be   payable.    Clause   (10)   provides  that   all   such disputes/suits,  which are pending before the High Court  or Tribunal/Labour  Court,  whether collective  or  individual, would be deemed to have been finally decided on the basis of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

this  agreement  and all such cases would be withdrawn  from the  Court.   Clause  (14) reads that on the basis  of  this agreement  in connection with all the disputes and  payments arising  out of the closer, all the existing disputes  would be   deemed   to  have   been  finally  decided.    However, respondents in each of these cases disputed applicability of the aforesaid settlement to their case.  Before the Tribunal an  application  was filed for the appellants claiming  that the  reference should be decided in terms of the  settlement dated  19.10.1989.   That application has been rejected  and the  writ  petition was filed before the High Court  by  the appellants.   The  High  Court  took the view  that  in  the present  case  the services of each of the respondents  were terminated in year 1985 and unless his consent is taken, the union  has  no right to settle the disputes relating to  his termination  of service and in the absence of any mention of this  dispute in the settlement, it is of no consequence and therefore  on  that  basis held that the view taken  by  the Labour  Court  is correct and calls for no interference  and rejected  the writ petition filed by the appellants.   Hence this appeal.

     Reading  of Clause (7) Clause (10) and Clause (14)  of the  settlement  would indicate that it was entered  in  the wake of the closure of the factory in the year 1988-89.  The claim  of the respondent workmen is that their services  had been  terminated  long  before  that is in  the  year  1985. Therefore,  their  cases were not within the purview of  the settlement  at all.  A careful reading of clauses (7),  (10) and  (14)  would  make it clear that they would  only  cover those  cases which were proximate to the time of  settlement and  not  all  those  which  were far  beyond  the  date  of settlement.   Therefore,  we are of the view that  the  High Court and the Labour Court were justified in their views, of course,  for  different reasons.  The Labour Court  can  now dispose of these matters in accordance with law.

     These  appeals,  therefore, stand dismissed,  however, with no order as to costs.