Judgment The Petitioners have challenged impugned order dated 4 November 2011, passed by the Industrial Court, Thane. The case of the Petitioners is as under:- 2 The Respondent is one of the unions of employees of Petitioner No.1 corporation. The Respondent is not recognized union. To ensure compliance with Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 (for short, MSW Rules, 2000) requiring scientific collection and disposal of waste generated in the city of Thane, Petitioner No.1 issued advertisement dated 7 May 2005 calling quotations from contractors for the work. The Respondent, being aggrieved filed Complaint (ULP) No. 211 of 2005 in the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Thane. It was inter-alia alleged that the said public notice dated 7 May 2005 was in breach of agreement dated 23 June 2004 between the Corporation, Employees' union and the State Government. It was also alleged that the work of garbage collection and disposal could not be given on contract. 3 The Petitioners duly appeared in said complaint and brought it to the notice of the Court that the Petitioners had not entered into any agreement dated 23 June 2004. It was also submitted that in any case none of the employees of Petitioner No.1 was affected and there was no cause of action. It was also submitted that the Respondent not being recognized union could not file complaint on behalf of all the employees. 4 The Petitioners submitted that the Member, Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Thane, after recording of evidence, by his judgment and order dated 4 November 2011 was pleased to partly allow the complaint and hold that there was an agreement with corporation dated 23 June 2004 and that by not having discussion with unions before allotting the contract, the Petitioners had failed to implement and agreement dated 23 June 2004 and had thereby committed unfair Labour Practice under item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, MRTU & PULP Act). 5 The basic finding of the learned Judge for the purpose of adjudicating the present Writ Petition, are as under:- “12 I thus, find that regarding contract work, decision was already taken in May 2002, and the same was reiterated on 23.6.2004 in the meeting, where the then Commissioner of the respondent No.1 Corporation was also present. 5 The basic finding of the learned Judge for the purpose of adjudicating the present Writ Petition, are as under:- “12 I thus, find that regarding contract work, decision was already taken in May 2002, and the same was reiterated on 23.6.2004 in the meeting, where the then Commissioner of the respondent No.1 Corporation was also present. Now, the management of solid Wastes/Garbage is very important from the hygiene and health point of view. There are rules, namely Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000, and the Corporation is responsible for the management of Solid Wastes. Considering the importance of the work, the respondents though it proper to allot the said work on contract basis. Ultimately, the decision regarding contract could be that of respondents only. The only requirement was the discussion/consultation with the union. The condition regarding discussion or consultation was binding on the respondents, and it amounted to an agreement. As submitted by Mr. Vishwanathan, the respondents are required to discuss with the union before taking any decision regarding allotment of solid waste/garbage management Work on contract basis. The respondents admittedly did not discuss with the union before allotting the contract. The said act of the respondents, therefore, amounted to failure to implement the agreement, and therefore is unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Sche.IV to the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. 13 The complainant had contended that under the B.P.M.C. Act, 1949, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had no power to allot the work on contract basis. The said contention is not substantiated. The evidence indicates that with the introduction of the contractor none of the workers has been retrenched during all these years. Neither the wages are reduced, nor the service conditions are adversely affected. Witness Jagdish had tried to state that increase in duty hours, and shifting of employees are the adverse affects. However, admittedly, there is no document produced to show such adverse effect. There is no evidence also to show that the duty hours have increased or that the workers were required to be shifted. Even otherwise shifting of workers according to the requirement, cannot be said to be an adverse change in the service conditions. Further giving particular work on contract basis does not amount to rationalization and standardization etc. None of the items in the Fourth Schedule to the I.D. Act is attracted in the present case. Even otherwise shifting of workers according to the requirement, cannot be said to be an adverse change in the service conditions. Further giving particular work on contract basis does not amount to rationalization and standardization etc. None of the items in the Fourth Schedule to the I.D. Act is attracted in the present case. Introduction of contract system in question is not proved to have caused any adverse change in the service conditions of the employees. The decision taken by the respondents cannot be faulted with, except on the ground of absence of discussion/consultation. I thus find that the respondents by failing to discuss/consult with the union had engaged in unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Sche.IV to the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.” 6 The operative part of the impugned judgment is as under:- “ORDER 1. The respondents before deciding to allot contract regarding Solid Wastes Management in future, shall discuss with or consult the complainant union and other unions. 2. No order as to costs. 3. This order shall take effect on and from 3.12.11.” 7 Both the parties have led and referred and put their respective interpretation to the minutes of the meetings dated 23 June 2004. 8 Admittedly, as recorded, there was a meeting of various concerned officers of the Corporation and the Ministers. It appears that there was a strike notice. The concerned Minister and the concerned officers to have a consultation and/or amicable settlement, decided to hold joint meeting to pass/finalize various aspects of aggravated situation. The meeting took place accordingly. It referred to various subjects. Admittedly, there are signatures mentioned at the end of so called meeting proceedings (The proceedings). 9 The concept of “agreement” as defined and elaborated and as contemplated under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, always needs to consider from the facts and circumstances of the case. In case of any doubt, it is not only recording of the particular minutes of the meetings of the Committee but earlier observations read with the subsequent meetings of the follow up conduct of the parties, goes to the matter. In every such matter, whatever recorded in the minutes of the meeting, which was because of all notice and intervention of the Ministers, in view of call off the strike cannot be stated to be the binding agreement. In every such matter, whatever recorded in the minutes of the meeting, which was because of all notice and intervention of the Ministers, in view of call off the strike cannot be stated to be the binding agreement. The settlement, even if so discovered and recorded, itself provides various other remedies and/or procedure and/or mechanism to follow. Therefore, unless those mechanism and modes are complied with, the assertion so recorded in the proceedings itself cannot be stated to be the final and binding agreement for the purpose of the unfair labour practice under Item 9 Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. 10 The discussion and/or consultation prior to the allotment of contract regarding solid wastes management, are made to avoid further conflicts and with a foundation that the Respondent and/or such employees should not suffered their rights, whatsoever already created. The fact that they are in service of Petitioners since long, and if affected by any action and/or inaction from the side of Corporation and/or employer, definitely entitled to agitate and/or raise the issue. Both the parties need to adjudicate and settle the issue preferably and amicably between them. The proceedings so recorded itself provide and intend to settle the various disputes/conflicts, including allotment of contracts regarding solid waste management. 11 It appears from the minutes of the meeting itself that, before awarding and/or calling of the tender, the Respondent or concerned employees and/or their unions, if the demonstrate that they would be in a position to complete the work through the employee's, then there would be no reason to invite the tender to get the work done through the third agency and/or the private contractor. 12 The issue in the present case is, for whatever may the reason, there was no prior consultation at relevant time. Therefore, according to the Respondent Union, that amounts to breach of agreement/settlement and therefore, the unfair labour practice. The learned Judge has also accepted the same and specifically observed that the Petitioners-original Respondents failed to discuss with the union and engaged the unfair labour practice. Therefore, according to the Respondent Union, that amounts to breach of agreement/settlement and therefore, the unfair labour practice. The learned Judge has also accepted the same and specifically observed that the Petitioners-original Respondents failed to discuss with the union and engaged the unfair labour practice. It means, hereinafter whenever such occasion comes, first of all it is mandatory on the part of the Petitioners to have a consultation or discussion; secondly, even if there is consultation and/or discussion, if the Respondent union and/or such other employees suggested in the meeting that they would be in a position to complete the work and there would be no question of inviting tender from third parties. The Petitioners-Corporation would be bound by the same. In a way, if once the offer is given and inspite of the offer the Corporation fails to accept the same with reasons and/or without reasons, according to the Respondents Union, this would definitely amounts to breach of their agreement and/or settlement, as recorded in the minutes of the meeting. This situation means, hereinafter in every such matter, the prior consultation is mandatory and if the Petitioners failed, they would falls within the ambit of “unfair labour practice”. Such declaration and decision is certainly quite serious in nature, apart from penal consequences. 13 The concept of consultation has various aspects, as well as, the facets, so also the concept of discussion. There is no dispute that the Petitioners-corporation, in view of the provisions of The Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (for short, “the BPMC Act”) read with the various provisions, whereby, it is permitted to enter into the various contracts as provided under the BPMC Act. Even otherwise, the Corporation has obligation to perform their mandatory duties as provided under the Acts and the Rules and regulations and the Government circulars. They are the best person to see and settle the issues to manage their affairs, as the public at large are involved. Even otherwise, the Corporation has obligation to perform their mandatory duties as provided under the Acts and the Rules and regulations and the Government circulars. They are the best person to see and settle the issues to manage their affairs, as the public at large are involved. To consult and/or discuss with such Union, is an ideal way of settling and/or to avoid further conflicts, but to say that if there is no consultation and/or discussion and if they expressed that they would be in a position to complete the work and if the Petitioners fail to comply with the same and/or still proceeded to award the contract/tender to the third person, to observe against them that it amounts to the unfair labour practice, will definitely hamper and affect the statutory rights of the Petitioner, as provided under the Act. We have to consider the suggestions and the agreement/settlement, even if any, from every angle and not only from the perspective of the Respondent Union or the employees, but also from the perspective of the Petitioner-Corporation, being the statutory local body. The Act permits and provides to enter into the private contract. The only requirement is to follow the procedure prescribed under the law. The prior consultation and/or discussion, even if so mentioned and/or agreed, in my view, cannot be read and referred to mean that it is a mandatory to the effect that. breach of it, itself amounts to unfair labour practice. 14 The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-Union has referred and filed affidavit on 5 September 2011 referring to circular dated 27 July 2004, issued by the Government of Maharashtra. It appears that this circular is nothing but a formation of the Committee as referred in the proceeding minutes of the meeting dated 23 June 2004, as referred above. The contents of the Marathi circular are:- “HINDI” 15 The proceedings of such meeting were not final. It was held after due discussions on the various subjects covering bonus, compensation, appointment on compensatory ground, permanency, issue of octroi, including the rights of employees based upon the 5th Pay commission. When, as per the proceedings/minutes itself was decided to have further discussion, subject to the formation of the committee and it was subject to further discussion, itself means that though discussed, was not final and binding decision on the day itself, as announced. When, as per the proceedings/minutes itself was decided to have further discussion, subject to the formation of the committee and it was subject to further discussion, itself means that though discussed, was not final and binding decision on the day itself, as announced. The Minister and/or the officers/officials of the Corporation read with the Union, if they sit together and/or decide to discuss the issue and the discussion so recorded, cannot be stated to be binding and/or cannot be stated to be mandatory to mean that for all the purposes, whatever recorded in such meetings, binds even the statutory authorities for all the purposes. Such discussion, in my view, though recorded, cannot be stated to be have a binding statutory effect to overlook the provisions of the Act. 16 It definitely intended to settle the dispute with further amicable solution for all the points, which were discussed. The discussion so recorded, itself in my view, cannot be have a binding effect to say that the breach of such clauses, itself amounts to unfair labour practice. The minutes itself if permits and provides to have a formation of Committee with clear intention to have a discussion and also provides a procedure and/or mode to be followed by all the parties, including putting the conflicted and/or undecided issue before the Committee, so that the Committee can take decision finally subject to putting the report with the Government. All these further procedural aspects and/or mechanisms so provided, means the parties have proceeded and decided to call off the strike and/or to settle the issue, subject to the decision so recorded in the meeting referring to all the respective items. This also means, for all the subjects, as discussed in the meeting, they have decided to form the Committee; in case of conflicts and in settlement of any particular issue so subjected above, the matter needs to be placed before the Committee and the Committee in a given case, will take decision only if there is no settlement between the parties. It also means, in a given case, the Committee may settle the issue after due discussion with the parties; any breach and/or non-compliance of the procedure, so referred in the minutes of the meeting, itself can be placed before the Committee for discussion and/or for solution. The Committee, empower to take decision. It also means, in a given case, the Committee may settle the issue after due discussion with the parties; any breach and/or non-compliance of the procedure, so referred in the minutes of the meeting, itself can be placed before the Committee for discussion and/or for solution. The Committee, empower to take decision. Therefore, there is no reason in case of non-compliance of any clause, as done in the present case, no prior consultation or discussion, treated as unfair labour practice, as contemplated under the Act. 17 The word “settlement” or “agreement”, as referred and relied upon by the parties binds all the parties. Therefore, the minutes so recorded above, provided the procedure and remedy and/or mechanism, in my view, also binds the Respondent Union and/or its employees, for all the purposes. 18 The next issue of non-consultation and/or no prior discussion, in a given case, in my view, itself amounts to dispute and/or conflict. If it was decided, to have the Committee to decide all the issues as discussed and the Committee is empower to consider the issues, which are not decided and/or settled by the parties subject to the report to the Government. Therefore, in case of conflict and/or of no settlement of issues covering the subject referred above in the minutes, the Government is the final authority. 19 The circular is clear and so its purpose. The situation is only required to be taken care of in case of conflicts. The Committee is constituted for that purpose and so also the requirement of approval of the Government, if any. 20 Admittedly, the circular dated 27 July 2004, which if filed on record during the course of the final hearing of the matter, was not placed and not part of the record before the trial Court. The effect and/or existence of this Committee, even if any, still in the present case, the learned Judge while deciding and holding that the Petitioners-corporation has committed unfair labour practice relied upon the minutes of meeting dated 23 June 2004, as referred in the letter dated 28 November 2005 revolving around the same. The Respondent Union's case is that, they get the basic documents through RTI by applying in accordance with the Right to Information Act, therefore, the contents of the letters itself sufficient to bound the Petitioners. Admittedly, letter dated 28 November 2005 was signed by one Mr. M.S. Shirke. The Respondent Union's case is that, they get the basic documents through RTI by applying in accordance with the Right to Information Act, therefore, the contents of the letters itself sufficient to bound the Petitioners. Admittedly, letter dated 28 November 2005 was signed by one Mr. M.S. Shirke. The parties have not examined the author of the letter. There is nothing on record to show that Mr. Sanjay Sethi was present on that day, but the letter dated 28th November 2005 reflects his name, it means he was present on the day in question. This aspect, in my view, needs no further discussion, as admittedly based upon so called minutes of meeting as recorded. The Committee in question, formed by the Government. It is difficult to overlook the subject and the discussion so recorded on 23 June 2004 and also the Government decision dated 27 July 2004 empowering the Committee to deal with the same. 21 The reasons so recorded, in my view, by the learned Industrial Court, has not considered all these facets which according to me goes to the root of the matter, including the filing of the complaint at this stage without referring and/or without waiting for any discussion with regard to the effect of such minutes, which admittedly was subject to the formation of the Committee, as recorded above. 22 The learned Industrial Court, in my view, erred in declaring that the Petitioners have unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, without considering all these aspects, including the stage of filing such complaint, in such fashion. 23 The parties read and referred the minutes of the meeting of the year 2004. The complaint itself was filed in the year 2005. The parties proceeded based upon the material so placed on record at that time on the relevant evidence. The final order is of dated 4 November 2011. The Industrial Court, after so many years, now directed the Petitioners to discuss and/or consult in future before deciding to allot the contract regarding solid waste management. There is nothing to show that what happened during this period with regard to the same aspect. The finding so recorded after so many years though referred to future action, but by holding that non-consultation and discussion amounts to the unfair labour practice by overlooking all these facets and the evidence itself impermissible. There is nothing to show that what happened during this period with regard to the same aspect. The finding so recorded after so many years though referred to future action, but by holding that non-consultation and discussion amounts to the unfair labour practice by overlooking all these facets and the evidence itself impermissible. I am inclined to observe that it is wrong and contrary to the provisions of the Act read with the minutes of meetings so referred and relied. No such minutes and observations can be read in isolation by overlooking its contents and purpose. 24 The document if not placed on record at the relevant time and the parties proceed based upon the averments made in the year 2005 and/or written statement and/or material so placed subsequently and including the evidence so lead and the order so passed, generally need to be considered from that perspective, basically when we are referring to Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. As noted, this is not the dispute between two private parties, where the Court based upon the pleadings so available in a given case may or may not interfere with the reasonings so recorded. The Court may not even permit the additional affidavit for the first time in the Writ Petition. But, undisputed position on record is that it is not only the Petitioners, but all similarly situated statutory Corporations and Municipal Corporations and/or in a given case such other Local Authority, apart from the State Government, are bound by the decision so given by the Industrial Court and which has repercussion of uncontrolled nature. That itself, in my view, sufficient to consider to accept the additional affidavit on record as filed. Because, it deals with the circular dated 27 July 2004, which was admittedly not part of the Trial Court proceedings, which is not seriously disputed, the Court just cannot deny and/or for this circular to be taken on record and, which ultimately goes to the root of either of the submissions. I am inclined to permit the Government circular on record to pass appropriate order. I am inclined to permit the Government circular on record to pass appropriate order. 25 Therefore, taking over all view of the matter including the reasonings, referring to the proceedings/minutes of the meeting dated 23 June 2004, and considering the effect of the admitted Government circular dated 27th July 2004 placed on record which is relevant for the adjudication of the issues, I am inclined to set aside the order dated 4 November 2011. However, I am inclined to observe that it is necessary for the Industrial Court, to reconsider the matter afresh by permitting the parties to file additional affidavit and/or material on record referring and/or revolving around the issues. The matter is therefore, remanded for rehearing on all points. 26 Resultantly, the following order:- ORDER a) Impugned order dated 4 November 2011, is quashed and set aside. b) The matter is remanded for reconsideration and retrial. c) The learned Industrial Court, to decide and adjudicate the issue, after giving full opportunity to both the parties and dispose of the matter expeditiously. d) However, it is made clear that the observations, even if any, made while disposing of the present Writ Petition, may not influence the learned Industrial Court, while passing the final order after retrial. e) All the points are kept open. f) The Petition is, accordingly, allowed. g) There shall be no order as to costs.