Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(3) It is agreed between the parties to abide by the code of discipline."

5. The union was not a party to the settlement and so calls it in question in this writ petition apprehending that under S. 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the settlement may be enforced even against the workmen who were not members of the association, but were members of the union.

6. Sri Krishnayya appearing for the union denounced the settlement in more that one way. His first submission was that the settlement was not arrived at in the course of a conciliation proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act, and so did not have the efficacy which is claimable under S. 18(3) of the Act. His second submission was that settlement derogated from the terms of an earlier settlement which had been reached in the year 1960 and which continued to operate under S. 19. His third submission was that the settlement transgressed the provisions of S. 23 of the Payment of Wages Act.