Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 488 (GUJ)

Agrimore Ltd. v. Hon'ble Labour Court, Valsad

2010-10-06

M.R.SHAH

body2010
JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. As common question of law and facts arise in these group of petitions and as such Special Civil Application No.5809/2010 is the main petition and rest of the petitions are one page petitions, all these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. In all these petitions, common petitioner Agrimore Limited has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order directing the Labour Court, Valsad to dispose of the Reference (LCV) No.379/2006 and other allied references, the particulars of which are given at Annexure K, in terms of the settlement arrived at between the representative union/concerned workmen and the management. 3. The facts leading to the present Special Civil Applications in nut-shell are as under: All the concerned workmen, represented through their representative union i.e. respondent No.2, were serving with the petitioner Agrimore Limited. There was an industrial dispute with respect to termination of the concerned workmen and the individual workmen raised industrial dispute through their union, which were referred to the Labour Court, Valsad, the particulars of which are given at Annexure K to the petition, which were numbered as Reference (LCV) No.362/2006 to Reference (LCV) No.559/2006. It also appears that there was also a dispute with respect to closure/illegal closure of the petitioner Company for which the industrial dispute was raised by the union, which was also referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Surat, which was numbered as Reference (IT) No.9/2005. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that after the references were made to the concerned Tribunal/Labour Court, petitioner entered into settlement with the concerned workmen/recognized union under Section 2P of the Industrial Disputes Act under which as a full and final settlement concerned workmen were to be paid amount ranging between Rs. 6 lacs to Rs. 8 lacs. It is also the case on behalf of the petitioner that all the concerned workmen have been paid the entire amount due and payable under the 2P settlement dated 18.06.2008 by account payee cheques and all of them have accepted the same without any objection and even the 2P settlement has been signed by all the concerned workmen. 8 lacs. It is also the case on behalf of the petitioner that all the concerned workmen have been paid the entire amount due and payable under the 2P settlement dated 18.06.2008 by account payee cheques and all of them have accepted the same without any objection and even the 2P settlement has been signed by all the concerned workmen. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that thereafter, after the aforesaid 2P settlement was implemented and the concerned workmen were paid entire amount due and payable under the aforesaid settlement, recognised union respondent No.2 herein as well as the petitioner submitted joint application before the Labour Court, Valsad requesting the Labour Court to dispose of the aforesaid references being Reference (LCV) No.362/2006 to Reference (LCV) No.559/2006 in terms of 2P settlement and the Labour Court instead of disposing of the aforesaid references in terms of the 2P settlement, directed to issue individual notices to all the concerned workmen. Hence, the petitioner management has preferred the present Special Civil Applications under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India directing to issue notices upon all the concerned workmen. 4. Shri Keyur Gandhi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner management has submitted that when the 2P settlement has been signed by all the concerned workmen and when the entire amount due and payable to the concerned workmen have been made and when the representative union was already there, the Labour Court ought to have disposed of aforesaid references in terms of 2P settlement. It is submitted that by not disposing of the aforesaid references and keeping the same pending and directing to issue notices upon the concerned workmen, would be frustrating the 2P settlement arrived at between the concerned workmen representative union and the management. It is submitted that the Labour Court has not appreciated the fact that it is not even possible to serve concerned workmen individually as the references have been filed giving the address of union. It is submitted that therefore, it is practically not possible to serve individual workman. It is submitted that the Labour Court has not appreciated the fact that it is not even possible to serve concerned workmen individually as the references have been filed giving the address of union. It is submitted that therefore, it is practically not possible to serve individual workman. It is submitted that though the settlement has been arrived at in the year 2008 and the entire amount due and payable to the concerned workmen payable under the aforesaid settlement has been paid in the year 2008 itself, which is never objected by any of the workmen till date and therefore, the Labour Court ought to have disposed of the aforesaid references in terms of 2P settlement. It is further submitted by Shri Gandhi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that so far as Reference (IT) No.9/2005, which was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Surat is concerned, the same has been disposed of by the Industrial Tribunal in terms of the aforesaid 2P settlement and therefore, the Labour Court ought to have finally dispose of the references in question in terms of 2P settlement. 5. Shri Gandhi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that as such once the concerned workmen have signed the 2P settlement and even the representative union has also signed the 2P settlement and amount due & payable under the settlement has been paid to the concerned workmen, which approximately comes to Rs. 6 lacs to Rs. 8 lacs, without any objection, the Labour Court ought to have disposed of the aforesaid references in terms of 2P settlement and by not disposing of the said references in terms of 2P settlement, it will frustrate the object and purpose of entering into 2P settlement and by which, despite the amount under the settlement has been paid, the dispute with respect to termination of the concerned workmen are kept pending, which is not permissible. It is submitted that though till date, no workmen has raised any objection against the 2P settlement, as such after accepting the entire amount due and payable under the settlement, it is not open for any of the workmen to challenge the 2P settlement. It is submitted that though till date, no workmen has raised any objection against the 2P settlement, as such after accepting the entire amount due and payable under the settlement, it is not open for any of the workmen to challenge the 2P settlement. It is further submitted that even if any of the workmen wants to challenge the legality and validity and/or fairness of the 2P settlement, in that case, concerned workmen is required to deposit the entire amount which is accepted by them, which is paid to them under the 2P settlement. It is submitted that they cannot be permitted to accept the amount due and payable under the 2P settlement and also to keep the reference pending. Shri Gandhi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Herbertsons Limited v. The Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Others reported in (1976) 4 Supreme Court Cases 736, on 2P settlement. It is further submitted that as such, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, when a recognised union negotiates with an employer the workers as individuals do not come into the picture and it is not necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement since a recognised union, which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of labour. Therefore, it is requested to allow the present petitions and direct the concerned Labour Court to finally decide and dispose of the aforesaid references in terms of the 2P settlement dated 18.06.2008. 6. Shri Dipak Dave, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2, representative union in Special Civil Application No.5809/2010, which is the main petition. It is submitted that as such the union had not objected to the 2P settlement, however, the only objection on the part of the union was that as the respective references are individual references by the concerned workmen, all the concerned workmen are required to be issued notices at the time when the references are finally decided and disposed of. It is submitted that as such the union had not objected to the 2P settlement, however, the only objection on the part of the union was that as the respective references are individual references by the concerned workmen, all the concerned workmen are required to be issued notices at the time when the references are finally decided and disposed of. It is to be noted that as such respondent No.2 union cannot and could not have objected to disposal of the aforesaid references in terms of 2P settlement, as they themselves have approached the Labour Court by joint pursis and has requested the Labour Court to decide and dispose of the aforesaid references in terms of 2P settlement, which is not only signed by the concerned workmen individually but is also signed by the representative of respondent No.2 union. 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, it appears that dispute with respect to terminations of the concerned workmen were referred to the Labour Court, Valsad being Reference (LCV) No.362/2006 to Reference (LCV) No.559/2006. One another dispute with respect to illegal closure of the petitioner was also referred to Industrial Tribunal, Surat, which was numbered as Reference (IT) No.9/2005. It appears that during the pendency of the aforesaid references and to resolve the dispute between the parties, the respective parties inclusive of the concerned workmen, representative union and the petitioner management have entered into the 2P settlement dated 18.06.2008 and under the said settlement, each workmen is required to be paid the amount ranging between Rs. 6 lacs to Rs. 8 lacs as full and final settlement of their claim against the company. It is to be noted that the said 2P settlement has been signed by all the concerned workmen individually as well as the petitioner management as well as the representative union. It is also not in dispute and it appears that whatever the amount due and payable under the settlement has been paid to the concerned workmen by account payee cheques as far back as in the year 2008 and nothing is on record that till date any of the workmen has objected to the 2P settlement. None of the workmen have approached the Labour Court raising any objection thereafter. None of the workmen have approached the Labour Court raising any objection thereafter. Thus, whatever amount due and payable to the concerned workmen under the 2P settlement has already been paid to the concerned workmen, which has been accepted by the concerned workmen as far back as in the year 2008. It appears that in view of the above, a joint pursis was submitted by the representative union and the petitioner management before the Labour Court, Valsad to finally decide and dispose of the aforesaid references in terms of 2P settlement and unfortunately the Labour Court instead of deciding and disposing of the said references in terms of the 2P settlement, directed to issue individual notices to the concerned workmen. It is to be noted that as such there are in all 199 employees/workmen who have signed the 2P settlement and have accepted the amount due and payable under the 2P settlement. It is also required to be noted that the addresses which are given by the concerned workmen, are C/o union and even the addresses of the individual workmen are not known. Therefore, as such practically, it will not be possible to serve the concerned workmen individually in absence of any addresses of the individual workmen. The aforesaid fact has not been appreciated by the Labour Court. At this stage, it is to be noted that even the Industrial Tribunal, Surat disposed of the Reference (IT) No.9/2005 in terms of the 2P settlement. Not disposing of the references in terms of 2P settlement despite the fact that amount due and payable under the 2P settlement have been paid to the concerned workmen, which they have accepted without any objection and keeping all the references with respect to the dispute of termination pending, would be against the purpose and object of entering into 2P settlement, which is to buy peace and to put an end to the entire litigation. One can understand if any of the concerned workmen have objection to the 2P settlement. It is very much doubtful whether an individual workman, after pocketing the money due and payable under the 2P settlement can object to it, when the settlement has been signed by the representative of the recognised union. It is to be noted that in the present case, even the 2P settlement has been signed by all the individual concerned workmen. It is very much doubtful whether an individual workman, after pocketing the money due and payable under the 2P settlement can object to it, when the settlement has been signed by the representative of the recognised union. It is to be noted that in the present case, even the 2P settlement has been signed by all the individual concerned workmen. Therefore, it is not appreciable, why the Labour Court directed to issue notices upon the individual workmen instead of finally deciding and disposing of the aforesaid references in terms of the 2P settlement. The Labour Court has not properly appreciated the fact that as such though more than two years have passed after entering into the 2P settlement and after they were paid the entire amount due and payable, no workmen has raised any objection till date. Under the circumstances, the Labour Court is required to be directed to finally decide and dispose of the aforesaid references in terms of the 2P settlement. ? However, to be on safer side, it will also be just and proper to direct the Labour Court to give advertisement in vernacular in any two local newspapers having wide circulation in Surat i.e. Gujarat Samachar and Gujarat Mitra, specifically pointing out that union as well as the petitioner have placed on record the 2P settlement and have requested to dispose of the Reference (LCV) No.362/2006 to Reference (LCV) No.559/2006 in terms of the 2P settlement dated 18.06.2008 and if any individual workmen has any objection against disposal of the respective references in terms of the 2P settlement, he may appear before the concerned Labour Court by submitting the written objection within a period of four weeks and if no objections are raised, in that case, Labour Court, Valsad is directed to decide and dispose of the aforesaid references in terms of the 2P settlement and if any individual objection is raised by any of the workmen, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law and at that stage the submission on behalf of the petitioner, that the said objection can be considered only after depositing the entire amount which is paid to them under the 2P settlement, shall be considered by the Labour Court. 8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all the petitions succeed in part. 8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all the petitions succeed in part. The Labour Court, Valsad is hereby directed to finally decide and dispose of the Reference (LCV) No.362/2006 to Reference (LCV) No.559/2006 in terms of the 2P settlement, however, subject to condition that the Labour Court shall give public notice by giving advertisement in vernacular in two newspapers viz. Gujarat Samachar and Gujarat Mitra, Surat Editions within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the present order, by specifically mentioning that the representative union as well as the petitioner herein management have submitted a joint pursis to finally decide and dispose of the Reference (LCV) No.362/2006 to Reference (LCV) No.559/2006 in terms of 2P settlement dated 18.06.2008 and if any individual workmen has any objection, they may appear before the Labour Court, Valsad and submit the objections in writing within a period of four weeks from the date of publication of such advertisement/public notice and in case no written objections are received by the Labour Court from the concerned workmen, the Labour Court is hereby directed to finally decide and dispose of those references in terms of 2P settlement dated 18.06.2008. In case, any individual workmen submits the objection against disposal of the concerned references in terms of 2P settlement dated 18.06.2008 within stipulated time, which may be mentioned in the said public notice, the same shall be considered by the Labour Court in accordance with law within a period of three months and at that stage, the contention on behalf of the petitioner that before considering such objections on merit, concerned workmen may be directed to deposit the entire amount paid to the concerned workmen paid under the 2P settlement and the same may be considered by the Labour Court while considering such objections in accordance with law and on its own merits. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent in each of the petition. Registry is directed to send the writ of this order to the Labour Court, Valsad immediately. Direct service is also permitted. Order accordingly.