Bombay High Court
Airlines Cabin Crew Association vs Indian Airlines Corporation And Others on 21 July, 1986
Equivalent citations: (1987)ILLJ285BOM
JUDGMENT
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking following reliefs :
(a) The respondent No. 1 Corporation be restrained from enforcing the terms and conditions of service under the settlement dated March 8, 1982 against the Cabin Crew who are members of the petitioners, and
(b) direction to respondent No. 1 Corporation to continue to pay to the Cabin Crew, who are members of the petitioners, wages, dearness allowance and other service conditions and benefits strictly in accordance with the agreements or settlement in operation prior to March 8, 1982.
A few facts giving rise to the filing of this petition are required to be stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners.
2. Respondent No. 2, Air Corporation Employees' Union-is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act and represent the employees of the Corporation. The petitioner Airlines Cabin Crew decided to form an association of Cabin Crew members in the service of the Corporation in the year 1979 and 340 members of the Cabin Crew decided to join the petitions. The total member of the Cabin Crew, at the relevant time, was about 625. The petitioners' Association was registered on February 6, 1980 under the Trade Unions Act. The respondent No. 1 had entered into a settlement with respondent No. 2 on January 10, 1972 in respect of pay-scales and other conditions of service of the employees of the Corporation and in accordance with the settlement, an Award came to be passed. Respondent No. 2 had made demands with respondent No. 1 Corporation in respect of conditions service of the employees in the year 1980 and after the petitioner Union was formed, the petitioners entered into correspondence with respondents Nos. 1 and 2 claiming that the Corporation should not enter into settlement respect of conditions of service of Cabin Crew. The petitioners being apprehensive that respondent No. 1 would enter into settlement respondent No. 2, filed Writ Petition No. 1151 of 1980 in this Court and the same was disposed of by learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated October 7, 1980, a copy of which is annexed as Ex. 'L' to the petition. The learned Judge directed as follows :
"This being the legal position, I direct that the petitioners shall send to the 1st respondent and to the 2nd respondent letters signed by the members of the Cabin Crew who do not want to abide by the settlement that may be arrived at between the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent stating that they do not want to so abide and that they are not members of the 2nd respondent Union and if they are such members they resign from the membership. These letters will be sent on or before 17th October, 1980 till then no settlement will be signed between the 1st and 2nd respondents.
In view of the aforesaid position, I also direct that the agreement signed, if any, between the 1st and 2nd respondents will not bind the members of the Cabin Crew who write letters as aforesaid, in case it is found that majority of Cabin Crew are opposed to the settlement being arrived at by the 2nd respondent on their behalf. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs of this Petition.
It is obvious that it is open to the parties to go for conciliation in accordance with law."
Subsequently, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 entered into settlement on March 8, 1982 and the present petition was lodged on April 21, 1981 claiming reliefs as set out hereinabove.
3. Mrs. Mhatre, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the settlement dated March 8, 1982 is not binding on the petitioners as the Petitioner Union was registered on February 6, 1980 and subsequently on August 18, 1982, the Director of the Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation, directed the Secretary to the Corporation to confer recognition on the petitioner Union. It was urged by the learned counsel that the members of the petitioner Union had not agreed to the settlement reached by respondent No. 2 with respondent No. 1 and as the settlement was one under Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and not one in the conciliation proceedings, it will not bind the members of the petitioner Union. The submission cannot be accepted in view of the decision given by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1151 of 1980. The order passed by the learned Judge seems to be one in invitum and it was agreed on behalf of the petitioners that letters would be sent by the members of the petitioner Union to the Corporation informing that they do not want to continue as members of respondent No. 2 nor they are willing to accept the settlement which would be arrived at between respondents Nos. 1 and 2. In pursuance of this direction of the learned Judge, 440 Cabin Crew members sent letters before October 17, 1980, but, unfortunately for the petitioner, subsequently 201 members of the Cabin Crew addressed letters to respondent No. 1 Corporation informing that they continue to be the members of respondent No. 2 Union and the management shall sign the settlement with respondent No. 2 as early as possible. These 201 members who had earlier sent letters as directed by the learned Judge informed the Corporation that they are withdrawing their earlier letters. A copy of the letter sent by one of the Cabin Crew member is set out hereinafter :
"The Industrial Relations Manager, Indian Airlines, 113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road, New Delhi - 110 001.
dated : 27th November, 1980 Sir, I understand that some document has been sent to you recently to indicate that I am not a member of Air Corporations Employees' Union. I also understand that this has been done in an attempt to stall the settlement on Charter of Demands in respect of Cabin Crew. I do not know how this confusion is created.
I may now clearly state that I am a member of A.C.E.U. and you should please sign our settlement with A.C.E.U. only as early as possible.
Yours faithfully, ACEU, Name : A Promalekha New Delhi Base : Madras"
As 201 Cabin Crew members withdrew their earlier letters, only 239 members had opposed the settlement reached between the Corporation and respondent No. 2 Union. As mentioned hereinabove, the total number of crew members was 625 and as only 239 had opposed the settlement as per the direction of the learned Single Judge, the settlement would be binding on all the crew members. The learned judge directed and which direction seems to have been accepted by the petitioners that if the majority of the crew members accepts the settlement, then it will be binding on all the Cabin Crew members. In these circumstances, the claim of the petitioners that the settlement dated March 8, 1982 is not binding upon the members of the Association cannot be accepted. In this connection, it is required to be stated that the fact that 201 Cabin Crew members of the petitioner Union withdrew the letters is set out in paragraph 13 of the return dated September 16, 1982, sworn by Shankar Lal Hans, Industrial Relations Manager of the Corporation, and in the affidavit in rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioners, there is no challenge to that claim. As the majority of the members of the petitioner Association have accepted the settlement, it is not permissible for the petitioners to claim that the settlement dated March 8, 1982 is not binding on them.
Mr. Mhatre, then urged that the settlement is to the detriment of the Cabin Crew members and the members of the petitioner Association who had not accepted the settlement were not considered for promotion or were promoted. The contention that the settlement is not advantageous to the Cabin Crew members cannot be accepted because it is well-settled that unless it is established that the settlement is not fair and just, the Courts will be slow to disturb the same. The petition does not set out that the Corporation had refused to consider any member of the petitioner Association for promotion, but in case any member is insisting on promotion on the basis of settlement, then such member at the same time cannot contend that the settlement is not binding. Larger majority of the Cabin Crew members have accepted the settlement and it is not possible to ignore it merely because a few Cabin Crew members have got some objection. In this connection, the reliance by Shri Taliyarkhan on the decision in the case of Harbertsons Ltd. V. The Workmen of Herbertsons, Ltd. and others 1977 (33) F.L.R. 398 is appropriate. The Supreme Court observed that it is not proper to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad. The settlement has to be accepted or rejected as a whole and unless it is demonstrated to be unfair and unjust, the Court will be slow to reject it. In the present case, majority of the Cabin Crew members have accepted the settlement and have taken advantage of the same, and, in my judgment, as the petitioners have not established that the settlement is unfair and unjust as a whole, it is not possible to grant relief to the petitioners.
5. Accordingly, petition fails and the rule is discharged, but in the circumstances to the case, there will be no order as to costs.