MANAGEMENT OF ROCA BATHROOM PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. RANIPET LABOUR UNION
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Management Of Roca Bathroom Products Private Limited
Ranipet Labour Union
Click here to view full judgement.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD,J. -
(1.) In an ongoing industrial dispute regarding wage revision, the management of the appellant company entered into a settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, "the ID Act"?) on 21.1.2019 with the second respondent Labour Union. An application I.A.No.8 of 2019 in I.D.Nos.3 and 29 of 2013, was filed by the appellant management to consider the settlement entered into between it and the second respondent and for framing a preliminary issue to that effect, which has been rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 6.3.2019 observing that the signatories to the settlement are not the office bearers of the first respondent Union representing the majority of the workers.
(2.) The appellant company approached the learned Single Judge challenging the same, but the writ petition has been dismissed vide judgment dated 25.10.2019. The learned Single Judge noted that the settlement dated 21.1.2019 has been entered into through a Union registered in 2017, a splinter group of 120 workmen forming a minority, whereas the Union which was existing from before, namely the first respondent, represents the majority of the workmen consisting of 179 persons who have not entered into any such settlement. The learned Single Judge did not find it proper to issue any such direction for framing of a preliminary issue and rejected the writ petition holding that the Industrial Tribunal shall proceed to decide the same upon the respective contentions raised by the parties. The learned Single Judge has however made observations to the effect that the rule of majority is the rule of authority.
(3.) The aforesaid observation made by the learned Single Judge is being questioned by the appellant contending that the same will amount to refusal of even considering the settlement entered into between the appellant and the second respondent, which would be detrimental in determining the fairness of the proposal. It is therefore the contention of the appellant that if the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal dated 6.3.2019 is allowed to stand, the same would be denying an access to the resolution of the dispute that is being represented by the second respondent.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.