Karnataka High Court
Mysore Paper Mills Sugar Mills Factory ... vs The State Of Karnataka Represented By ... on 15 April, 2005
Equivalent citations: ILR2005KAR2594, 2005(4)KARLJ464, 2005 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 1451, (2005) 4 KANT LJ 464, (2005) 4 LAB LN 171, 2005 LABLR 759, (2005) 106 FACLR 878, (2005) 4 LABLJ 594, (2005) 3 CURLR 90
Author: R. Gururajan
Bench: R. Gururajan
ORDER R. Gururajan, J.
1. Petitioner is before me challenging annexure-F, the settlement signed and executed by R-2 and 3 on 7-3-2005. Petitioner is the President of the Mysore Paper Mill Sugar Mills Factory Labourer's Association Union. Petitioner's union and one another union Mysore Paper Mill Employees Labour Union submitted their charter of demand separately to the management. The management without following the procedure and calling the petitioner for deliberations, unilaterally accepted the charter of demand submitted by the other union, and the charter of demand submitted by the petitioner's union was neither accepted nor rejected by the management. Thereafter notice was issued by the office of the third respondent Commissioner calling upon the petitioner's association to negotiate for reconciliation in the matter of wage settlement. Petitioner represented by its President and office bearers appeared before the third respondent and filed detailed statement in the matter. Without notice the reconciliation before the management, the matter was referred to the third respondent Commissioner. Thereafter the third respondent with hostile approach and difficult attitude did not call for discussion to finalise the charter of demand and instead he adopted anti-labour attitude by dividing the petitioner's union and calling officer bearers excluding petitioner-President in finalising the charter of demand. Petitioner objected for the same by letter dtd 7-3-2005. On the same date, a settlement has been entered into between the parties. Petitioner is before me challenging the settlement effected by the parties.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.
3. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the settlement is acceptable for all terms except with regard to the clause pertaining to wages. Without considering his objections and without his participation a settlement has been arrived and therefore this Court has to interfere in a matter like this.
4. After hearing the learned Counsel I have carefully perused the material on record.
5. Admittedly, petitioner is before me challenging a settlement that has been entered into between the management and the workmen in conciliation under Section 12(3) of the ID Act. In fact it is seen from the settlement that the petitioner's union was represented by Vice-President, Secretary, Joint Secretary and Treasurer. Only the President is left out. Unless the petitioner is able to show that in terms of bye-laws that the other office bearers are ineligible to represent the management, it is not possible for this Court to quash the settlement solely on the ground of non-participation by the President only. Even otherwise, the allegations of grievance made in the writ petition are general in character. I am unable to understand as to why a responsible labour commissioner should have some grievance against the petitioner. No details are forthcoming. In these circumstances, the argument of hostile attitude on the part of the third respondent commissioner cannot be accepted for the purpose of quashing the settlement. I must also notice that the object of the Industrial Disputes Act is to promote settlement and that is what actually has been done by the labour commissioner. There is no place for personal ego/personal rivalry in the matter of industrial settlement. I am also of the view that unless a very strong case is made out, a writ Court has to be very slow in dealing with a negotiated and conciliated settlement under the ID Act. No such circumstances are placed before this Court warranting my interference in my extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. No grounds. Petition stands rejected.