MOHAN MADHUKAR GHATE Vs. N D RATHOD CONCILIATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are employees of Messrs Glindia Ltd. , respondent No. 5 in this petition. The petitioners are members of Glaxo Laboratories Employees Union, a Union duly recognised under section 12 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as "the 1971 Act". On 16th September, 1988, a settlement was arrived at between the Union and respondent No. 5 in the course of conciliation and was duly signed and endorsed by the conciliation officer, respondent No. 1. The said settlement covered several demands which were made by the Union on the management earlier. By the said settlement the management conceded part of the demands of the union.

(2.) THE petitioners, in this petition, have impugned the validity of the said settlement dated 16th September, 1988 on various grounds. If the petitioners would have merely challenged the validity of the said settlement without anything more and without contending that the conciliation officer had failed to perform his statutory duty, this petition would not have been entertained. The petitioners, however, made detailed averments in the petition alleging that Mr. N. D. Rathod, the respondent No. 1, had failed to perform his statutory obligation as conciliation officer and the said settlement could not therefore be considered as a settlement arrived at " in the course of conciliation. " The petitioners have assailed the said settlement , inter alia, on the ground that the office-bearers of the Union, Mr. D. N. Mayekar, Mr. S. K. Padlia and Mr. M. M. Manjrekar, respondents Nos. 2, 3, and 4 respectively in this petition, arrived at the said settlement contrary to mandate of general body of members and without requisite authority and the said settlement could not therefore be considered as a settlement arrived at with the Union. The petitioners have also contended that the said settlement was not arrived at bona fide but was arrived at as a result of collusion and it was unfair and contrary to the interest of the workmen.

(3.) BEFORE the facts and circumstances leading to the filing of this petition are set out at some length, it is necessary to state at the threshold that the President and other office-bearers of the Union were authorised to sign the said settlement by the managing committee of the union by its resolution passed on 14th September, 1988. A copy of the minutes of the meeting of the managing committee of the union held on 14th September, 1988 is made available to this court. It appears from the said minutes that 32 members of the managing committee were present at the said meeting. It is common ground that three of the petitioners were also present at the said meeting in their capacity as members of the managing committee. It is also common ground that 27 members of the managing committee voted in favour of the settlement which was ultimately signed on 16th September, 1988. It is also obvious from the minutes of the said meeting dated 14th September, 1988 and also from other records that a secret ballot had been held by the Union so as to ascertain the wishes of the members of the union as to whether the proposed settlement should be accepted by and on behalf of the union or not. It is stated in the said minutes, which are authenticated minutes, that Mr. D. N. Mayekar, President of the Union, had informed the managing committee members that secret ballot had been conducted at Thane on 2nd September, 1988 and at Worli on 5th September, 1988 in terms of the decision taken in the general body meeting held on 26th August, 1988 and 29th August, 1988 at Thane and Worli. It is stated in the said minutes that the result of the secret ballot was as follows :-