Find a Lawyer

Case No. 454 of 1976, decided on 29th January 1977.

----S. 34 read with Ss. 39 & 40‑Settlement arrived at between Management and previous C. B. A.--‑Held, binding on new (successor) C. B. A. as agent of workmen‑Demands involving financial implication cannot be raised during operation of such settlement.

Date of Institution : 26th January 1976.

The facts of the case as stated in the petition are as follows: petitioner is the Premier Tobacco Industries Ltd. respondent No. 1 is Premier Tobacco Industries Workers' Union which has become C. B. A. on 18th October, 1976 for a period of two years on the basis of a referendum held on 18th October, 1976. Respondent No. 2 is the Premier Tobacco Industries Employees' Union which was Collective Bargaining Agent in the Establishment of the petition upto 18th October, 1976 and it lost this status in the referendum mentioned above. Respondent No. 2 while it held the status of C. B. A. presented a Charter of Demands on 7th July 1976 to the petitioner for negotiation under section 26 of the I. R. O., 1969, that after negotiation between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, a settlement was arrived at between the petitioner and the then Collective Bargaining Agent i.e. respondent No. 2 on 15th July, 1976, in the manner as prescribed by law. This settlement was to be binding for a period of two years i.e., from 15^thJuly, 1976 to 14^thJuly, 1978 under clause 2 of the settlement. Under clause (3) of the Settlement it was settled that the Union shall not raise any demand involving financial implication directly or indirectly and that the petitioner has already implemented the settlement and has already distributed the benefits of the settlement to all the workers of the establishment. It is contended that respondent No. I has, during the pendency of the above‑mentioned settlement sent a Charter of Demands, dated, 17th November, 1976 to the petitioner raising fresh demands involving a huge amount. It is contended that the settlement, dated 15th July, 1976 is binding on all the workers and during the currency of the said settlement respondent No. 1 cannot raise any demands involving financial implication directly or indirectly and hence the present petition under section 34 of the I. R. O., read with sections 39 and 40 of the I. R. O., 1969.

The petition was contested by respondent No. 1. As preliminary objection it was contended that the petitioner had no cause of action and that the present petition is purport d to defeat the secured and guaranteed rights of the respondents. On facts the contesting' respondent contended that the answering respondent was not aware of any such settlement, it was further contended that any so‑called settlement would not be binding on respondent No. 1 as it was not the successor of respondent No. 2 and as the two respondents are distinct legal entities.

The Petitioner establishment closed its evidence after producing Mr. M. A. Khan Yusafi, the Personnel Manager while respondent No. 1 examined its General Secretary as its solitary witness.

From the evidence on the file the following facts clearly emerge :‑

(1) Respondent No. 1 attained the status of C. B. A. on 18th October 1976.

(2) Respondent No. 2 was the previous C. B. A.

(3) Settlement, dated 15^thJuly, 1976 copy Exh. P. W. 1/3 was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 for a period of two years.

(4) A fresh Charter of Demands, dated 17^thNovember, 1976 was served by respondent No. 1 upon the petitioner which has occasioned the present case.

The question to be decided is that whether during the currency of the settlement, dated 15th July, 1976 between the petitioner and the previous C, B. A. can the new C. B. A. raise fresh financial demands or not.

A Collective Bargaining Agent has been defined in sub‑section (v) of section 2, I. R. O., 1969 as under :‑

"Collective Bargaining Agent in relation to an establishment or industry means the Trade Union of workmen which under section 22 is the agent of workmen in the establishment or as the case may be, industry, in the matter of Collective Bargaining.

Under Section 22, subsection 12 (b) it is entitled to represent all or any of the workmen in any proceedings. It is thus clear that a C. B. A. is the Agent, the spokesman and the representative of the workers in the establishment.

Under the provisions of section 39 (d) of the I. R. O., a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings shall be binding on all the workmen who are employed in the establishment when a Collective Bargaining Agent is one of the parties to the dispute.

In the instant case respondent No. 2 was a party to the dispute and the settlement, dated 15th July 1976 was arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings and hence it is binding on all the workmen of the establishment.

As seen above a C. B. A. is the agent of the workmen in the matter of Collective Bargaining and if the principal is bound by the terms of the settlement it cannot be said that the settlement is not binding upon the Agent.

Thus a settlement is not binding upon respondent No. 1 because it is the successor of respondent No. 2 but because respondent No. 1 is the agent of the workmen upon whom the settlement is binding and so it is also binding on respondent No. 1.

Under section 40 (2) of the I. R. O., a settlement is binding for such a period as is agreed upon by the parties.

It is thus clear that during the operation of the settlement, dated 15^thJuly 1976 respondent No. 1 i.e., the representative of the workers cannot raise any demand involving financial implication directly or indirectly. The petition is accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.