- (1.) THIS is one more instance where a frivolous litigation claims very valuable public time in the Court of law. It is really an abuse of process of the Court of law. The petition has arisen from an order passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Tribunal on 22-9-2000 on an application made by the Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha (hereinafter referred to as Union) in the pending reference No. I. T. No. 39 of 1997. Following the union, the petitioner company had also filed similar application and sought for similar prayers as sought for by the union. Both these applications were taken on record by the Tribunal and marked as Exhibits U-141 and C-234. It appears that after giving "no objection to this Honble Tribunal passing an ex-parte award in the case of those who have made the application by way of affidavits in the year 1998-99," the Union has turned about and made volte-face. The union is now vehemently opposing the prayer of the company for an award in terms of the settlement. The learned member was also constrained to pass a very lengthy order running into more than 25 pages, obviously after wasting a number of days for hearing the submissions made on behalf of both the contesting parties. The Tribunal has finally passed the following operative order :--- "the reference to proceed ex-parte in case of field force employees who have made an application by way of affidavits for the years 1998 and 1999. The companys request for passing ex-parte Part I awards in terms of individual settlements signed and filed before this Court of years 1998 and 1999 is hereby rejected. The company is hereby permitted to lead the evidence of the Area Sales Managers in respect of the settlements of the years 1998 and 1999 if the company so desires. " From the lengthy synopsis and the sequence of dates and events from 1957 onwards, it is clear how bitterly the contest is being fought out by the employer and the Union. Both the learned Counsel have taken me through the events from 1957 till the end of the century. I do not wish to dwell upon the historical background of the dispute nor do I have any such patience to do so. The point is very simple though the learned Counsel appearing before the Tribunal as well as the learned Counsel appearing before me have made it appear to be a complicated question involving intricacies of law. I have heard both the learned Counsel at quite a length as there was no other alternative.
(2.) THE reference under section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is pending before the Industrial Tribunal is in respect of a charter of demands submitted on behalf of the workmen-employees of the petitioner company for adjudication. The litigation between both the sides is endlessly going on upto the Supreme Court. One segment of the workmen whose industrial dispute is pending before the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication in respect of general demands such as wages, D. A. etc. is known as field force employees. This category appears to comprise of salesmen or sales representatives and medical representatives employed by the petitioner company. It appears and there is no dispute that these field force employees have separately and independently entered into individual 2-P settlement with the petitioner company for the years 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000. Under these settlements the field force employees appear to have received on an average increase of Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 3,000/- per month. It also appears that these field force employees are not the members of the Union and the union has disowned them.
(3.) THE present petition has arisen from the application (Exhibit U-141) dated 19th July, 2000 made by the Union. It will be pertinent to reproduce three relevant paras from the said application for ready reference and better appreciation of the present litigation instantaneously :--- "1. The company has so as led evidence of six witnesses concerning the 1996 and 1997 alleged individual section 2 (p) settlements entered into by the field force employees with the company. Evidence of one witness concerning individual settlements of 1996 of Calcutta Branch and one of 1997 of Delhi Branch are yet to be completed, which means only two witnesses are left for 1996 and 1997 settlements. 2. In so far as the companys evidence of the individual settlements of 1998 and 1999 is concerned, it is a matter of record that the company has filed applications by way of affidavits of each and every field force employee stating that the concerned employee has entered into a section 2 (p) settlement with the company in full and final settlement of the demands referred to this Honble Tribunal. The said affidavits of field force employees have been taken on record and are already exhibited. 3. In view of the above position in law, the Sabha submits that it has no objection to this Honble Tribunal passing an ex-parte award in the case of those who have made the applications by way of affidavits in the years 1998 and 1999. In the said changed circumstances, it is neither necessary nor relevant for the Area Sales Managers to give evidence concerning the voluntary character of the individual settlements of 1998 and 1999. ";