JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, petition is taken up for final hearing.
2. The petitioner Air India Employees Guild, ('AIEG' for short) is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and it is also a recognised union for Air India Ltd. under the Code of Discipline. A Memorandum of Settlement was arrived at; under Section 12(3) read with Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on September 2, 1999 before the Asst. Commissioner of Labour (Central) Mumbai between the representatives of the petitioner and Air India; Ltd. Under the said settlement it was agreed that 0.5% of the basic pay of all the employees covered by the AIEG be deducted from the salary and the amount so deducted by the management be handed over directly to the; families of the deceased employees every month by account payee cheque issued in their names. Pursuant to this settlement the management of Air India is making deductions from the wages of the employees in terms of the settlement. It seems that another union of workers viz. Air India Employees Union complained against the deductions made by the management from the wages of the employees to respondent No. 3 viz Chief Labour Commissioner (C), Government of India who addressed the letter dated October 9, 2000 to the Managing Director of the Air India objecting to the deductions from salary of the employees. In that letter it was observed that such deductions from the salary of the workmen without their consent are not authorised deductions in law. Relying upon this letter the management of Air India has to stop the deductions and therefore the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition under Article 226.
3. We have heard Mr. Shetty for the petitioners, Mr. C.U. Singh for Air India and Mr. Mehta for respondent nos. 2 and 3.
4. It is now well settled that when a recognised union negotiates with an employer, workmen as individuals do not come in picture. It is not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union, which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of workmen, enters into settlement in the best interest of workmen. This is held to be a normal rule. Of course there may be exceptional cases where allegations of mala fides, fraud or even corruption are levelled against the union. Barring these exceptions a settlement in the course of collective bargaining is entitled to due weightage and consideration. In the instant case the settlement incorporates death benefit scheme which is devised to help and mitigate hardship faced by the dependents of the employees who died while in service. There are no allegations of mala fides, fraud or corruption in the instant case. Under the circumstances respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were not justified in taking any unilateral action inspite of the settlement signed between the petitioner union and respondent no. 1 Air India Ltd. Mr. Mehta learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was unable to justify the letter issued by the Chief Labour Commissioner objecting to the deductions being made by respondent no. 1. He fairly conceded that a settlement arrived between the Union and the management can be terminated only in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.
5. In the result, petition is allowed. The impugned letters dated October 8/9, 2001, November 23, 2001 and November 30, 2001 are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.