Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jash Engineering Ltd. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 February, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4414
-1- WP-23812-2023
MP-142-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 19TH OF FEBRUARY 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 23812 of 2023
JASH ENGINEERING LTD.
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Girish Patwardhan learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri
Oshin Upadhyay, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sudeep Bhargava learned Dy. Advocate General for the
respondent/State.
Ms Meena Saxena learned counsel for respondent No.2.
WITH
MISC. PETITION No. 142 of 2023
ADHYAKSH JASH ENGINEERING LTD. LABOUR SANGATHAN
Versus
PRABANDHAK
Appearance:
Ms Meena Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Girish Patwardhan learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri
Oshin Upadhyay, counsel for the petitioner.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on: 28.01.2025
Pronounced on: 19.02.2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 19-02-
2025 16:06:33
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4414
-2- WP-23812-2023
MP-142-2023
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India has been filed by the petitioner against the award dated 24.07.2023
(pronounced on 31.07.2023) passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Indore, in
Reference No. I.D.Act.02/2020, wherein the petitioner has been directed to
extend the benefit of settlement dated 08.05.2019 to the remaining members
of the respondent No.2 Union.
2. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies
Act having three different units situated at 31, Sector C, Sanwer Road,
Indore; 74, 76 and 77 Village Badari, Sanwer Road, Indore; and M-11 Phase
II, Misc. Zone ISEZ, Pithampur, District Dhar (MP). Respondent No. 2 is a
union registered under the Trade Union Act having its bylaws. Members of
the respondent No. 2 Union are working in Unit No. 1, i.e. 31, Sector C,
Sanwer Road, Indore. The activity of respondent No. 2 is confined to the
workmen, employees and labour working in Unit No. 1 as per 2(A)1 of the
bylaws.
3. The petitioner entered into a settlement dated 27.02.2016 and
08.05.2019 with 154 workmen (i.e. 2016 and 2019, effective for a period of
3-3 years) for granting the benefit of revised wages. The settlement was
signed by a representative of the petitioner and all the 154 workmen. This
settlement was executed under sub-Section 2 of Section 18 of the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 ('ID Act' for short), which is filed as Annexures P/3 and
P/4. According to the petitioner, only 169 workmen are working in Unit
No.1, who are members of the respondent No.2 Union also. Out of 169
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4414
-3- WP-23812-2023
MP-142-2023
workmen, 148 entered into a settlement with the petitioner therefore, the
remaining 21 workmen who did not sign the settlement were not given the
benefit of wage revision.
4. Respondent No.2 Union raised an Industrial Dispute before the
Labour Commissioner, Indore. The Petitioner appeared and submitted that
a settlement for the hike in wages/ salaries has already arrived, and if the
remaining workers are ready to sign the settlement, the benefit would be
given to them. The conciliation entered into failure thereafter, the Addl.
Labour Commissioner vide 25.02.2020 sent a reference to the Industrial
Tribunal. The issues raised in the reference are as follows:
''1. क्या संस्थान में कार्यरत समस्त श्रमिकों की वार्षिक वेतन वृद्धि की श्रेणी
अनुसार रू. 1800/- प्रतिमाह से रू. 3650/- प्रतिमाह किए जाने की मांग औचित्
यपूर्ण है? यदि हां तो इसकी क्या योजना होना चाहिये?
2. क्या संस्थान में कार्यरत स्थाई प्रकृ ति के कार्य कर रहे ठे का श्रमिकों को स्
थाई किये जाने की मांग औचित्यपूर्ण है? यदि हां तो इसकी क्या योजना
होना चाहिये?
3. क्या संस्थान में कार्यरत समस्त श्रमिकों को खर्ची (एडवांस) प्रदान किया
जाना, बच्चों की शिक्षा के लिये लोन प्रदाय किया जाना, प्रत्
येक माह का
उपस्थिति बोनस 250/- से बढाकर 2000/- किये जाने एवं प्रत्येक दो वर्षो में
सभी श्रमिकों को वर्षाकालीन एवं शीतकालीन ड्रेस प्रदाय किये जाने का
औचित्य है? यदि हां तो इसकी क्या योजना होना चाहिये?
तथा उक्
त संबंध में सेवानियोजकगण को क्या निर्देश दिये जाना चाहिये?''
5. The said Reference was registered as I.D.Act.02/2020 before
the Industrial Tribunal, Indore. Respondent No. 2 filed a statement of claim
claiming enhancement of wages from 1800/- per month to Rs. 3650/- per
month apart from other charter of demand. The petitioner submitted a
preliminary objection about the maintainability of the Reference on the
ground that by way of settlement, the petitioner has been giving a much
greater hike in the salary/wages as demanded by respondent No.2/Union
before the learned Tribunal. It was submitted that 154 workmen had
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4414
-4- WP-23812-2023
MP-142-2023
accepted the settlement, 15 have not accepted the settlement, and out of
them, two workmen expired, one has retired, and two workmen, namely
Ashish Gupta and Devendra Mathankar, have left their jobs. Therefore, 154
workmen have accepted the benefit flowing from the settlement, and the
Petitioner is willing to extend the benefit of settlement to all those
employees who are ready to accept the settlement from the date they accept
the settlement. Paragraph 8 of the preliminary objection is reproduced
hereunder :
"8. It is further submitted that the aforesaid 10
employees have not accepted the said settlement. The
IInd party is ready and willing to extend the benefits of
the settlement to all those employees who are ready to
accept the settlement from the date they accept the
settlement.''
6. The said application was opposed by respondent No.2/Union,
and vide order dated 22.06.2022, the learned Tribunal dismissed the
preliminary objection on the ground that the Reference is liable to be
decided on merits. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a detailed reply.
7. Subsequently, respondent No. 2/Union applied that the benefit
of settlement dated 08.05.2019 be given from the year 2020 to 2023 to all
the workmen working in Unit No. 1, 2 and 3. The said application was
opposed by the petitioner contending that the said settlement is effective up
to 2023 and, except the 21, the benefit has been given to all the workmen
working in Unit No.1. The Union, on the one hand, is opposing the
settlement as illegal and on the other hand they are seeking benefit. They
are responsible for non-grant of the benefit to the remaining 21 workmen.
The learned Tribunal rejected the application and directed parties to lead the
evidence. During the evidence also, respondent No.2/union submitted that
the benefit of settlement dated 08.05.2019 be given to 21 workmen.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4414
-5- WP-23812-2023
MP-142-2023
Finally, vide award dated 24.07.2023; the learned Tribunal has directed the
petitioner to grant the benefit of settlement dated 08.05.2019 to the
remaining workmen because they have given their consent vide Exhibit
D/1. The remaining demands have been rejected by the Tribunal. Hence,
this petition before this Court.
8. Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner, submitted that under Section 182 of the Industrial Dispute Act,
the employer is competent to enter into a settlement with the workmen.
Therefore, twice a settlement arrived with 154 workmen for pay revision,
and the benefit of the same was granted to them. The respondent
No.2/Union unnecessarily objected to the settlement and raised a dispute
before the Industrial Tribunal. They demanded an increase in salary by Rs.
3,650/- whereas, by way of settlement, the workmen were given a pay
revision of up to Rs. 3,950/-. It is further submitted that when the petitioner
filed an application that they were ready to give benefit to the remaining 15
workmen, respondent No.2/Union did not accept the offer, and the Tribunal
rejected the same. When respondent No.2/Union itself filed an application
for a grant of benefit, the Tribunal again rejected the application and
directed the parties to lead evidence, and now the final award has been
passed after three years from the date of reference, by which time the period
of settlement has expired. Therefore, those workmen who unnecessarily
approached the Tribunal and wasted the time and money of the Court are
not entitled to grant the benefit of settlement from the back date.
9. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel has
placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case
National Engineering Industries Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan reported in
(2000) 1 SCC 371 wherein the Apex Court has held that if every trade union
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4414
-6- WP-23812-2023
MP-142-2023
having few members is to go on raising a dispute and the State Government
referring again and again, the very purpose of settlement is defeated. Once
there is a representative union, which, in the present case, is the Labour
Union, it is difficult to see the role of the Workers' Union. Learned counsel
has also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of ANZ Grindlays
Bank Ltd. vs Union of India & Ors. Reported in (2005) 12 SCC 738
wherein the Apex Court has observed that a settlement arrived at by virtue
of sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the ID Act binds only the members of the
Association. However, the bank also extended the benefit of settlement to
such other employees who were not members of the Association, and in
order to avail of the benefit, they had to give a receipt that they were
accepting the settlement, and the same shall be binding upon them.
10. Shri Sudeep Bhargav learned Dy. Advocate General for
respondent No.1/State submitted that the scope of interference in the order
passed by the Industrial Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of
India is not permissible as the High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence
lead before the Industrial Court and come to a different conclusion.
Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. In support of his
contention, learned counsel for the State has placed reliance on the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Asbestos Janata Mazdoor Union
vs. Eternit Everest Ltd. And Ors., reported in 2008 SCC Online MP 853.
11. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/Union
submitted that the Union has been raising demands for revision of salary
since the year 2016. They agreed to get the benefit of settlement of 2016
and 2019 before the learned Tribunal. During the pendency of reference,
they gave consent for settlement. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly
passed the order for the grant of the benefit. Hence, no interference is liable
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4414
-7- WP-23812-2023
MP-142-2023
to be made in the order impugned. It is further submitted that the Union has
a right to represent the cause of its members, and if they raise a dispute for
other demands also, the reference cannot be dismissed.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
13. Admittedly, the petitioner entered into a settlement with the
members of the union for an increase in wages. Some workmen accepted
the terms and conditions of the settlement, and thereafter the settlement was
signed. But the said settlement would be binding on the workmen who
were party to the agreement under Section 18(1) of the I.D.Act. As per sub-
section (2) of Section 18 of the Act, an arbitration award which has become
enforceable shall be binding on all the parties who referred the dispute to
the Arbitration. As per sub-section (3) of Section 18, a settlement arrived in
the course of conciliation proceeding under this Act or an arbitration award
or an award of the Labour Court, Tribunal, or National Tribunal shall be
binding on all the parties to the industrial dispute. Therefore, the union has
a right to raise a dispute before the Tribunal because apart from demanding
a revision of salary/wages, there were other demands for which they were
pursuing the remedy before the Tribunal in accordance with the law.
However, during the pendency of the reference, the petitioner as well as
respondent/Union both agreed to grant the benefit of settlement, but the
Tribunal rejected both applications and thereafter passed the final order by
answering the reference. The learned Tribunal is competent to pass the
order of reference by directing the grant of benefit of settlement to the
workmen. In this case, no issue was required to be decided on evidence as
both parties did agree to an increase of salary/wages as per the settlement
dated 08.05.2019. The Tribunal passed the order under Section 18 of the
I.D. Act that the terms and conditions of settlement will apply to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4414
-8- WP-23812-2023
MP-142-2023
remaining workmen who are doing similar work.
14. Hence, no interference in the impugned award is called for. The
petition (W.P.No. 23812/2023) stands dismissed. Petitioner is directed to
extend the benefit of settlement dated 08.05.2019 to the remaining workers
of respondent No.2/Union. However, the remaining members / workers of
the union shall not be entitled to the interest on the arrears of wages as they
voluntarily did not sign the settlement with the company
15. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/Union challenging
the order dated 16.06.2022 (pronounced on 28.06.2022) and 08.09.2022
passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Indore, in reference Case No. 123/
IDR/2016 and 3/2022/ID.
16. As per the facts of the case, the petitioner/Union raised a
dispute in the year 2016 claiming pay revision for skilled, semi-skilled,
unskilled and super-skilled workers. In the said reference, there was a
settlement dated 27.02.2016 with some workmen for a grant of revision of
wages. Vide award dated 28.06.2022, the Tribunal has dismissed the
reference by observing that in view of the settlement dated 27.02.2016, the
demand for a salary increase is meaningless. The remaining demands were
also rejected.
17. In 2016, 21 workers were deprived of the benefit of pay
revision as they did not sign the settlement. In view of the findings
recorded in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the 21 remaining workers are also entitled to the benefit of the
settlement dated 27.02.2016 as was granted to the majority of the workers.
These workmen who are Class IV employees fall under the category of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4414
-9- WP-23812-2023
MP-142-2023
skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled labourers. Due to the pressure of office
bearers of the union, they are deprived of settlement as they refuse to sign
the same. Be that as it may, subsequently, they have agreed to the
settlement. Hence, the learned Tribunal ought to have passed an award in
that respect. It is not in dispute that the company also agreed to increase the
salary by way of revision to the workmen. Those who did not sign the
settlement have also been doing the same type of work, but only due to
allurement or inducement, they were deprived of the benefit of settlement.
However, it does not mean that they are not entitled to the benefit.
Therefore, in principle, when there is no dispute regarding the revision of
wages under the settlement of 2016 and 2019, then the benefit of settlement
to the handful of employees who did not sign the agreement should not be
denied.
18. Accordingly, the petition (M.P.No.142/2023) stands allowed. The
impugned award/order dated 16.06.2022 (pronounced on 28.06.2022) and
08.09.2022 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Indore, is hereby set aside.
Respondent/company is directed to extend the benefit of settlement dated
27.02.2016 to the remaining workers of the petitioner/union. However,
remaining members/workers of the union shall not be entitled to the interest
on the arrears of wages as they voluntarily did not sign the settlement with
the company.
19. With the aforesaid directions, petitions are disposed of. Let a
copy of this order be placed in the connected M.P.No. 142/2023.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
vidya
