S D MULEY Vs. JAIHIND INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition impugns the judgment and order of the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP )No. 172 of 1998 whereby the complaint filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.

(2.) All the petitioners are employees of respondent No. 1 and are employed till today with the company. A settlement was arrived at between respondent No. 1 and Sarva Shramik Sanghatana on 20-7-1997. That settlement was signed under section 2(p) read with 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Sarva Shramik Sanghatana (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Sanghatana') represented a majority of the workmen employed with respondent No. 1. Admittedly the petitioners were not members of the Sanghatana at the relevant time. According to them, the benefits of this settlement dated 20-7-1997 were not extended to them only because they were not members of the Sanghatana. It appears that the petitioners complained to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour who called upon respondent No. 1 to forward a copy of the settlement to the petitioners. The settlement stipulated that for securing the benefits under the settlement, the workmen were required to give an undertaking in the format annexed to the settlement. It appears that though the petitioners signed the undertaking it was not submitted within the prescribed time of two weeks from the date of the settlement. Moreover, the undertaking which was submitted by the petitioners was conditional.

(3.) As the benefits of the settlement were not extended to the petitioners they filed complaint (ULP) No. 172 of 1998 under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act. They contended that they were entitled to the benefits of the settlement like all other workers from 1-7-1977. According to the petitioners by not paying the benefits of the settlement respondent No. 1 had indulged in discrimination against one set of workers which was an unfair labour practice. The non-implementation of this settlement according to the petitioners also amounted to an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV. The petitioners conceded that they had been extended the benefits of the settlement from August, 1998 after they submitted unconditional undertakings with their letter dated 7-8-1998.