Karnataka High Court
First Flight Couriers Limited vs Karnataka Couriers Cargo And General ... on 11 April, 2008
Equivalent citations: 2009 LAB. I. C. 156, 2008 (6) AIR KANT HCR 188, (2009) 1 KANT LJ 372, (2009) 121 FACLR 20, (2008) 8 SERVLR 503
Author: Subhash B.Adi
Bench: Subhash B.Adi
SS rss re EME FETE WA Wr RAWAL OTE LW WP RARINVALARA THiott UUUAL UP KAKINAIAKA HIGH COUKI DCIS GOP BOAR UUATABOA AT BANGALORE a LTE DAY OF APRIL 2008 THE HONBLE MRI STICE SUB HASH B : ADI. WoL AG, 41994 OF 2003 (L-Res) vane falas ™ LP NO. 47252 OF 2098 (he Res) ae TERE ae Hc Lr a wo Petitioner ye HRP, JAcuecs tes} erat See t ie een, & . Street, FT eS ee ee ee Me ee ee RS ee eS OF ee me re Q WP 41904/09 ow WR4725/05 ". Cormtitsadoner of Labour i TP os annem 4 a TATA eS, Depal werner of La Peur hatia Moad, on a - ore -~ S60 O79, Responder ts (By SrL.T.S Anantharam, Advo : Po ---- BY THE PETITIONER 'UNDER es F THE CON STITUTION GF INDIA Be WARD. DATED 91.12.2002 IN [ " THE INTATSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, I oT Pee ¢ UIBE = oe ETC Poe Petitioner Firat Flight Couriers Limuted, Bie SE Gow L. ypiex, HAL 3 Stee, PSA PMUAr , Jeevanal! 7T AABAINALARA OS LUA SS or ee cee sees see ee er RE Ek EEE Wr WE APSA I Wise BS BRASS (03 ole WP Aree oS . Ressondent es . Advocates) 8 WP FILED BY THE. PETITIONER UBEDER / 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA MODIFY THE AWARD DATED 21.12.2002 IN 4 BY THE . INDEISTRIAL . TRIBUNAL, . VIDE ANWEXMURE-E,ETC, -- VE TWO WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR US DAY, THE COURT MADE THE pie oe. a WP Me 4iSee; 2002 is fled by the Management. 2.. In beth the writ petitions, the award dated oa No 297 1999 has been called in question. Toe Timer Hes questioned the award against the relecton of thea clalmn arel substitution of the settlement in . \ he award, Sy « 4 WhP4i9e4/0g ow WEST eRg OS The Management hae questioned the award only. in eo far ee extending the benefit of settlement to the members of the Union without they subscribing their". gtrneahire io the settlement. 2. Ac iewue was referred bythe Stage Government intustrial Disputes Act, interalia c 'ee to whether the charter of demands aubmitted by the During the pemdency of the dispute, twof the Uinem entered into a settlement riey of demands as per settlement dated O2.09.1909. The copy of te settlement is produced at mie . of the settlement between the Management oe rmeribera, the Industrial Tribunal framed a ertaination, 'as te whether the reference is BO S. te ee PEER Wee SOE Fee er a a RE SR Oe er ee ee EO OR ee maitninatde in view of the settlement dated 02.09.1999" ether the liniom hes properly espoused the ih ee ee ee ee eke URT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT S WLP s1904/08 oe WP ArosD og matrist Tribunel peld that the diay ute "is swewer or consideration of the evidence ted on belhelf of the Union as well as the M fanagen ement, the that, the se idement i fair, and. bondiry orl the members af the. 'Unio oss, as "the majority of of the Unie haves signed the settlement by cc ane accepting the settlement, the industrial T Tribunal passed as > a bet es award intsralis... suber tite iti the settlement dated S Ais varitheban, isarned counsel appearing for Preot stumaiit ex that, 2 Te te industrial Tribunal was not the settlement only on the ground e members of the Union have signed cormidering the feumess of the sattlemet | an i without considering as t whether the said tos bereloge on all the mermbere of the Union who In this regacd, he relied on Li. Act, are submitted that, parties only Dirnle those who Ss eo Sin ante . Kate, 'ather OURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH courT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT 4 WP41994/05 fe WE er ee os =
have signed the settlement. He alae submitted t that. the 3 ee, leewhustria: Triburwl was to consider as to w nether, , the ionfstetus of the Comuary cee nicea the written: argurmerits filed before the ledstrial Toba Hl order to peail out the at the Tie acter of demands waa for i= April 1908. te gis March 2001 and the onl ad the 08 pany fo et the period 1995-96, 1906-97 and 1997-98 was sourxl.. In this regard, he peated o ™, the net profit was to the tune
- paises "Zor 1006-97 Bs.51,91,100.10 [SO7-O8 Re.47\82,455.78 paise and it, the 'fiianeial position of the company beuyg (. ciade profite for the gest 2 years and farther the statue of the company m worth of Rs.100 charter of demands for increase of wages and "egnces was reasonable. Though these materials were race om record before the Industrial Tribunal, the Cleduerre! Tribunal without referring to the same has nent wherein the wage nike is made only t anil the. c batter of demands rade by the Union. In this reg egard, he pelied- on. URT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT e 'WE 41694708 o he Wa?
Fs.400/- for: the field /. for the operational etal? ie., Rs. = 20) fer che a. JOO /- for the fer year and Rs.500 fe He reted on the evides ence of. AM We "15, whe ig the Pia as ry erud Poms ou ta, the witness a ge, EEE using "the eonounting yeer 1965-96 for sien to the extent of Rs.20,91,065/- and °1996-97and Rs.47,82,455/- for e the Gnancial position and status of the if o ODEREMLE ari capacity te meet the demands, has comeentreted only on the terms of settlement, signed by the mt chiruig the pendency of the MMIRE ME RARNAIAKA HIGH COURT CF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT a WP eg ee mw P «WP 4 aes ss, Pie © RE ic ae '4 ther submitted that, though the logs is ; sheien or 1960-200. the figures for 1900-27000 are not. relevarit , Relive of the written arguments, | ne further sated that, 7 the fgnares of the Audit Report of Bangalore: uit is:
produced hefore the Court, | Pusther MO-1S is adinitted and on at @080 trearkecd, at the reley sit Sigur ines ani all India Dasis wee mot placed before' the Industrial 'Tebunal i He submitted that, the relevant' wiaterial for the warpose of determ:
cbarter.of demands made by the Union Te ge aor as to weeihs ag hae vt med ot net hes 'to be assessed on the basis of the profit and lows van ali indis basis arkinot on the Fegien or & As rogerds to the members who have signed the Bubt@itted that, sinoe the members of the oo Uerion Were nol peli micrements for the long period and '. they were in distress and under the distress, most of the (members heave Signe the settlement ard it carmot be held ae & tor selllement and further submitted that, even WES 1994/0 o for WP 47 989/03 Drak info Acme. Che figures as disclosed by the Management, the wage structure has to be increased. In this + regard, bes poate out that the Uruon has lead the evidence bslore the nvural Some of the witnesses examine a. by. the Management are the members of. Union, who "have: Wises Lave of ier ned the Be: ttlement, have made statement % Justrial Tribunal and that their evidence iz not purpose of adjudiation, as to the fustiication of the < charter of > demande made by the Union. He alo s stabi gutted, chat therely because the settlement is O Sime bythe, ? smajority of the members of the Unien that ' ines seth hin a A i¢@ members who have not signed the settlement and the dispute beteeen the Umoen and the aig, exiet. The industrial Triounel ie not justified i: substituting the settlement in place of the ig the game aa fer settlement. Syed 5 g x o = :
g 6 & g x o = :
Z 3 fe] 5 Oo oO x o = S < relevent: fortis zZ ) Lt o & 3 o
a) = 4 = : ;
= rs} = © = :
:5
& NATAKA HIGH COURT OURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KAR TO SALE 41604 (08 ofe WP Aroma os °. Sri S.W.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel *| appearing the sethecent and out of 112 mémbers of the Union, 106 imembers have xigned the settleméat, : 'When a settlement is aggmed by tue i fanagement ana th the menibers af the Union, aettlement under' Se: 218 4d) of ID. Act. is. , deemed to be fair amd 'bindiug not only eet inti bat also on other membera of the Union. 7 "He further aubmmitted that, the charter of f demands are , eqmeidered on the basis of Region- Wise al not on all - India basis. In this regard, he thet, charter of demande are made by different Unions a 4 set different maces and the same were coneilerac wy the Management according to the needs and ee "demands and the status of the company in the respective ormitted that in this case, only the Bangalo of the setterhent are ory from the Bangalore Unit and not nage PPE ern hese nf 4 Tn tenacn UPS chee ge oun be os a ee GLE G! Loo mem nere of the Union 125 toembers have » signed wagermert submitted that, as per Armnemnare - AD OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Li WLHP41904/03 chew WPsvoaosos fab wut other unite. In this regard, he. relied an mh the Feures judgmenta reported in 70844) FILE. le (WORKMEN OF " JEESOP & OO LTD -VS- JEESOP i © a DS : OTHERS Ss) The jeerned Sender counsel fy rther submitted 'that: the Apex Court while considering the norms for fixation of hea held that . "wages including wage atelee ere Teed on region-cur- indus try hesis, and one of h, & shiv Uhis. princip je in that concerna of mere me | standing eM the same industry should same fages so that they might atand ori A per ai sone' another in the matter of relying on this judgment. he subirtted that, the a ; :
perigy of tee wage structure has to be considered in the thia regard, he further relied on the decision of the Apex ; Court veported in 1983/1) LLJ 108 Hindustan Times hi Lai mitedi ~va- Their Workmenj frelevant page IiZ) and submitted that the "wage etructure which would give the workmen generally a ving Wage economic considerations UMP SE RARE NOTE OWVURI UF KAKNAIAKA HiGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT te te ae made that only a dream for the future. That io wiy the industrial tribunals i thie country geomaly confine thie, the economic factors have to be carefully considered. Por theee reasons, this Court has repeatedly exrphasined the need of considering the problera on aan industry-cum-region basis, and of giving careful conmderetira ty the ability of the industry topey", Relying on this decizion, he farther submitted that, on industry-cunrregion basis, the wage structure is 8 "eo far an the binding mature of the eetiement on the meihers of the Union who have not signed the i settlement, ian relied on the judgment reported in 1976(4) SCC 736 @IERBERTSONS LIMITED -VS- THE WORKMEN OF mes HBREERTSONS LIMITED & OTHERS) @ Relying to Paras 25 and 27, he submitted that, ance Oo3 oordiality is established between the employer and labour pee OURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ts MiP Salges Ol of We See oo itl arrive at & settlement which operates welt for the gneh.
perio] thet i in force, there is abraye a lkeliheod of further E advances io the shape of lope! gmohimerits" by itigenon. This ja the quintessence of. settlement 'which - Courts and Trivunals ah sould enideays mar to enoouurage. It i wed wt the settle omerit has tobe. juriged :
Lraot by the 2 sorutinising 'an-awatd in adjudication.
bjectionable : part in the settlement aril alee a tend fair 'and accepted by large vorkeners ia. , collective bargain mmphedly it eerfersd by thie Tribunal. By placing reliance { pwigmernt, he further submitted that, if the s tthe conclusion that the aetilement is just, fair as mk rewegoy wale, ever though the said settlement ie not jee of the members of the Uruen, the Industrial ure! carn accept the settlement and the members who ay:
: have not signed are alae beurel by the said settlement. actilement avoiding friction and unhealthy. OURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT |
10. He algo reled on another fA udgment of "the Devision Gerch of this Court reported in 200. TULL ' a9 28 .
Sdangriors Ganesh Beedi Worris, fdysore ana od ers vs :
Workmen represented by Secretary, | "Mangetore Ganesh. Seed Workers anel Allies Beedi "Factories: "Workers Assocation, Mysore}. Relying of Paran 26, 27, 28 and 29 he suhrette| that, this Court ity identical circumstances lexern accepted ty Management and the Po workmen has obs oY sve thin: we "So jhe settlement fuis been arived at by vast majority of workmen iwitk their eyes wide open and WEE cade cocepbed by them in its totality, @ must be . presumed t 60 be fear coud pest ces pot able to be ignored os merely. : et "ane small nuunber of workers were not om "pal ee tok or ¥ refused to raccepe i, He aiso suboutted that, in thas case, none of the oe tommbers ofthe Union who nave signed the aettlement have _ protested cv raised any objections against the terms of the . getilement, meority of the workmen heve not complained ageins? the termm: of the settlement. He alzo submitted ! RT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT :
[OURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C~ (8 BP Alea 28 ofw WP Ar eae Os pout CA ' gudstien Thuat wee required to be con sidered woe the faicnese of the setilemerc. bo this regard, be also" gubrrutted Unet iW omore than majority Giemieers carnal rage object one and the * Industrial Tribunal omee it comes ti he conclusion" that the gettlernent ie fap, the Tribunal is repre ta accept the saine arkl it tate. . CRS ae, Ge. 'Teibisnal having acoepted the aettlerment as Be ought-te ae wes "directed the mermbere of had ty at: -gigned "the aetilement to affix or ae 4 a ra * _ 7 _ gubecribe their sign nature. ms He algo submitted that from the written arguments 'out © by the learned counsel for the petitioner ) inet pertiouler veer but overall, the profit is
- faker entc acogut, the settlement m reasonable and he . alsa giabonitted that subsequent te the seriod for which the PS
- charter « cewinrele were meds, there were two other sefllewients and those having been accepted by the Union. of Fithe » worlemen have accep Loe aetilernerit as lair, pro pet and reasonabis, few ae a i OURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH court OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT cal is) ea pe POR Bol foge Ve FP a7 ORS OS Supperting [ndings of the Induetr tibunal, He further aubnatted thet, tke majority of the membere of the Union have tint raised any objections only few members | who Bave objections agaimet the aettlement, cannot be 'conatrucd: the settlement an wnlarr ara unjact. If the settlement ig just and Teir ard ia entered. int aie the larger 'interest of the lrefuetry ard Werkmen, it should ant be disturbed.
frast jook The only q question that arises for consideri LOS VEEL De Ter ist "Wisether the settete wiegmec by the majority of the Workmen of the Union is 'also birding on the members who . heave not aug ed the settlement, if the settlement is found to otiable'?
iz. ; a is not i am dwpute thet, the dispute ia referred in . cegards te the charter of dermands made by the Union for othe period from O1.O8, 1908 to 21.02.2001 for period of 3 : an i hes come on record that subsequent to the OMarler of decusewis. there were florther charter of demande 7 WP 4504/05 oe WP s728o/o8 esiernt period and there was a setter nent on it @ submitted that, thereafter also there: RS ene cigre settlement hes beer entered into botweon the Management ard the Union. The dis pute is or ty in in regard to the demands for the yaar from 1958-99) tg 2000-01, Ite not in dispute that urs the. pendency of the: dispute, the nt entered into a settlement £ cor which, majority "bers. oF. fre u Hadon. signed the: said setliement on O2.09. 1905. -- The: agh the learned counsel for the petitioner that, moat of the sigmatures are of the tal ¢ aivd other oualf However to aubeteritiate ention, the "Unis nhas not placed any evidence ustrial Tribune! In turn, the Manag he efiience of the workmen and the saki workmen ° tseee aleritted the fairness of the said settlement. of the certentiog: of the Union, written aoguments hes been filed before the Industrial Tribunal. lourr OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Hing to the contertiong raised by the Union, the profit ahown for the relevant 3 years ip taken mito account. ide not fri the demand made for increase in the wages for 4 oe \ 18 WP41904/05 cf. WP.A72R2/08 the said period is justifiable. For the eubsequent pesiod there are two settlements and both these settlement: ans * . accepted by the member ofthe Union, that ie coosidered . the charter of demands for 1998 to 2001, docs not appear to be reasonable. If thowe toro settlements aru ovnmidered -- together, they will not mike aay increase of wages to the extent demanded in the chartw of detrands for the year 1998-2001. Apest fivam this, the Management has filed the statement of accounts showing the profit and lows for the year 199-2001. 'The Management has suffered bee during 1997, 2000, 2002 and 2005. Though these figures may not relevant while considering the charter of demande for the
- redovarst period, however, if the demands are to be met PPh weer EP PST SE ESPERO Ee Whe RE OE PAPE PS ESE Wo during 1999 asd in 1999, Company had suffered net loes of | Ra.44,85,000/-, which cannot be ignored. At the same "time, as the Company has to increase ite wages based on ' 'dhe, Sinancial position, if those figures are taken into
- aeoount, the figures given by the Union, they by themecives | net justify the charter of demand for Rs.2000/- c : increase in wages. The company has increased Rs.400/- oe.
= Le oS oe TOTES ws WUE PPS PTY LAIR OF KARNATAKA HIGH ee 4 WLP 1994/03 ctw WP AToao/og pork ue fin the firat settlement afd in the secors) settlement, Rs. ?75)- amd Re. 1109)-, - wt only - Ba Ss LETS ective of the profit and bes da ating the relevant period, inc Company has increase the w wage structure of the. mamnbers of the Union gr adually & Sporn ste 0 stage. 'There i drastic increase in the wage a for' 1998-1999, i3. iis not m dismute thet, the relevant figures for the recent years ace tokio 'OF. @iview the increase in the The Apex. Court a: the matter of the OP & 20. -LTD., & OTHERS has observed u "F
-- is wee selied that wages including wage "gonles ay rem beg 2g) on ERT SENN Sey BSS, and one mo shi howe a2 newly as possible same wages so that they wight stand om a par wif ome another in the Feaer of corigediiiar', are pe. Ur KAKNATAKA HIGH COURT OF. KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
20) WIP 4199408 «he WP47oae os
14. This shows thet in order to give equality armongest tlie Workrnem un the sare region, | the wage region Wike aml not on any other basis. "This 'view Poe supported be the decision reported in 19631) LLg 108 where the Apex Court compidering the relevant figures has observed at page 112 thet:- -
TYPE a Ue 2 tncdusertel auc! ocetion teu Be Prag to fix a recape structie ne. which wont give the workmen geneity @ Being we cope eoonorie nOIsideraiions mezde that only c dream » for Hi future. That is why the ith ais thunals an this cOLaurly gene to the farget of fixing @ fair uiage. But there aman 3 'the gcomamic factors have to be carefully | mee Bor these reasons, tis Court has j -
ines ork enphasiaed ihe need of considering | ther Be From the observation of the Apex Court, it is clear that, the economic condition of the ixiustry te pey the Wages la ovet of the Inets required to be considered and it = a TTT MEAS FIRST GUE OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT 21 WhE41904/05 fw WR arospyos sieuld be on the hesis of the industry-cun-region. basis, wormicernyg the welidity of the charter of demands and the :
fgures dieclosed by the Managerceni. as. regards te the a Bangalore Unit is comeernmed, 2 appropriately these figures:
tally with the wage structure of the workenen as /vegerds to the Gunrices of the settlement. The Apex ¢ Court iA identical CHCA TeR Uo a "en aut re ported i Li int (1976) 4 SCC 736 tem. "he cA ~ nae observed at Para 5 thet: t: "We ae not prepared to ance, . ihe position, as eS rep Pe wooed by the second respon dent, that even the settlement is. Binary om the parties executing cactus. namely. 'the aernk re epresenting a feree oruajority of the 1 ance the eeome is not nincing on the members ear bead MMmzdoor Sabha Oruace, howsoever Srnall Le Sis, oe oe ye ° the nb bee, cunider See. lafi} of the Bichestrial Dy Ack, ihe appeal should be heard on merits. On the : other Hend, we take the wew that after hearing the o. Eearles 'this Court was Sclisfled wher tt had called for a | ee stirs oP he INbunel that if the setilement was fatr ond just, D would allow the parhes to he governed by ie Les ihe selilemerd. substituting the award" ant =a "y oo WLP § 1994/08 che WR aeons The Apex Court in the same judgment at Pava 27 has ne EU RNAUNEMARA THOTT COURT CFE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT "The settlement has to be. taken. as a package -
SG) GMs) ues Leber Aaa gained it the matter of wages and Uf there is some reiguction at the mater of GHG SS GUO Gee Se 0 fOr as the ate ard is concemed, it Cate he sald thet the ne settlement bS a whole ts unfair mori £ iriust *. a observed a at Para 2? 25 that:
"There riety. De 28 severe! Jartors thet may oufluence pasting ip mentaaee io a settle mend. as 2 plosed endenvour of ob Mectia ca ? bovgaining Cmce commalty is petzoeert ihe employer and labour | gett lemens which operates well for the int fore, tere ig aheays a tkethood of ist Settlement ot moiciny f frielon cmd { unheatthy Eigse ie Bae an Of settheoment which The Tribunal fed into ar ener in i govert i Such siiny & Glaowe regarding dewness allowance in jedgosg whether the settlement was just and four'. %, woking the principles that arena TT NNN PUNGTY COURT UT KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT fe, 4 perenrens om aot oh a thee dermertd.
23 BLE 41594703 ope Wp arosoros a3, MINOR Cormuiderinig the settlement, the Apex CAMUET Guowa cece ol juclging whether the settisiment was just and Fen TL, oe eet + bas orice emery _ . fair. The Epirness af the settlement, . the terms of the ; be faust and pot by comirontation by an dispute. Ceordmlty between the . "the paramount The Apex Court has ate "Ly Ses pa 2 gooey fer the Cert arrived at by the Manegement and che mer vets oF the Union, even a though iow meribers of the "B £eek Poe tee, The Apex Court has «i the aettlemert as fair, just and reasonable. Considering: tae decision of the Apex Court and also 4 che ra nate OT tierite, the gradual increase and ?
ie, substantial members of the Union having ettetmient, exoept few members of the Unien dug putiag the game, 1 do not find there is any jyuwtification 2 fon alWave represents ite members Con, og! E UW there is any litgetion regarding dearness WES Set ERR MR PRR ELE UE PCE OF EGE We er OE PPR PPE We PP OE OPAPP WPS ES Wea i i ee te wo 5 DTEELE WERE OEE Ne We ELE 24 W.P41904/05 c/w W.P.4S7282/05 how it can become unfair at the instance of only few members. em ak a ew ete Management and the Union and "substituting he settlement in place of the awant. If the settlement is fair, - just and reasonable in the interest of the Management and the Labour. In my opinion, the Court should not interfere with the saune, which would ctherwise will afleot the cordial relation between the Latour and she Management
16. in vo for os the contention of the Management that, the acttlement would 'be binding on the members of + the Union and are required to sign the settlement to avail the beneilt, thece ia no justification in this contention | Once the reitament is signed by the majority of the Union "mesohers and once if it is upheld, it is binding both the ' "Masagement and all the Union members and even those | "who have not signed, and it is deemed to have signed and accepted the settlement. In euch circumstances, I do not Sel RAW ED Wee ar OE FS TALES See 8 EE DT eh a ee ER ENE ee he Rr ER Ne er TR Sek IPS EP OE arr Nee er BR ELEEE RE ERR PRE OF ek WHERE EEE On 28 W.P4.1904/05 c/w WP47282/08 find that few members who have not signed the settiesnent are required to sign the settlement. Ba