Calcutta Telephone Contractors ... vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 7 April, 2025
(d) Masan Ali & Ors Vs UoI, CMWP No.4271 of 2007 (Hon'ble
Allahabad High Court)
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.36 seconds)Documents citing
Masan Ali Son Of Sri Hamid And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through The ... on 16 November, 2007
Krishnan M vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 16 August, 2018
13 In the above context, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in "Masan
Ali son of Sri Hamid and Ors. V. Union of India (UOI) decided on 16
November 2007 held "Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
clearly provides that settlement arrived at by means of agreement in between
employer and the workers otherwise than in the course of conciliation
proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement. The respondents
do not dispute that there is agreement and it is binding on them. If the
settlement is between the employer and the workmen it would be binding on
that particular employee and the employer; if it is between a recognized
union of the employees and the employer, it will bind all the members of the
union and the employer. That it would be binding on all the members of the
union is a necessary corollary of collective bargaining in the absence of
allegation of malafides or fraud.
Nagappan Nair vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 16 August, 2018
13 In the above context, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in "Masan
Ali son of Sri Hamid and Ors. V. Union of India (UOI) decided on 16
November 2007 held "Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
clearly provides that settlement arrived at by means of agreement in between
employer and the workers otherwise than in the course of conciliation
proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement. The respondents
do not dispute that there is agreement and it is binding on them. If the
settlement is between the employer and the workmen it would be binding on
that particular employee and the employer; if it is between a recognized
union of the employees and the employer, it will bind all the members of the
union and the employer. That it would be binding on all the members of the
union is a necessary corollary of collective bargaining in the absence of
allegation of malafides or fraud.
Masan Ali vs The Union Of India Through The Secretary on 14 May, 2015
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants were engaged as Part Time Sweepers in the Department of Telecommunication between the years 1985 & 1998. The department formulated a scheme for conversion of Part Time Casual Labourers into Full Time Casual Labourers vide letter dated 25.08.2000 (Annexure R-6) and thereafter all the Full Time Casual Labourers were considered for regularization against Group D vacancies and a list of such labourers was issued on 23.01.2006 (Annexure A-35). The General Manager, B.S.N.L. issued the orders of regularization on 20/31.07.2006 (Annexure A-42) and the pay was also fixed accordingly vide order dated 03.08.2006 (Annexure A-43). Later-on, the respondents cancelled the order of regularization and reverted the applicants to their original posts as casual labourers vide order dated 02.01.2007 (Annexure SA-3) and further directed the Accounts Officer to recover the excess amount paid to the applicants, vide order dated 15.01.2007 (Annexure SA-2). These two orders were challenged in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4271/2007 Masan Ali and others vs. Union of India and other connected Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8643/2007 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8307/2007 and both the Writ Petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 16.11.2007 (Annexure A-50) by a Single Judge Bench of High Court. In the said order, the Honble Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions and quashed the impugned orders relating to reversion and recovery of amount already paid. Aggrieved by the said order, the department filed Special Appeal No. 308/2008, Special Appeal No. 309/2008 and Special Appeal No. 310/2008. The said Appeals were disposed of by a common Order dated 04.12.2008 (Annexure A-52). The respondents issued show cause notices dated 28.02.2009 (Annexure A-53) which were replied by the applicants vide letter dated 19.03.2009 (Annexure A-54). The respondent No. 4 issued the impugned order dated 06.07.2009 (Annexure A-1) wherein it has been stated that the applicants were not found eligible for conversion to Full Time Casual Labourers and for regularization and their services were also terminated from the department to work as Casual Labourers w.e.f. 31.07.2009.
Hemalatha S vs Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 17 June, 2016
12 An anomaly committee was set up consisting of members from the side of the
management and the staff. The committee has already made recommendations for the
redressal of the grievance of the employees. The applicants, after giving consent through
their representatives for the issuance of the report, are not entitled to keep away from the
implementation of that report. That report was circulated which is consisting of a
proforma to point out specifically the name of the junior to whom the senior wants to
have his pay stepped up. Applicant did not submit any representation as directed.
13 In the above context, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in 'Masan Ali son of Sri
Hamid and Ors. V. Union of India (UOI) decided on 16 November 2007 held 'Section
18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 clearly provides that settlement arrived at by
means of agreement in between employer and the workers otherwise than in the course of
conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement. The respondents
do not dispute that there is agreement and it is binding on them. If the settlement is
between the employer and the workmen it would be binding on that particular employee
and the employer; if it is between a recognized union of the employees and the employer,
it will bind all the members of the union and the employer. That it would be binding on
all the members of the union is a necessary corollary of collective bargaining in the
absence of allegation of malafides or fraud.
Ramakrishnan K P vs The Chairman And Managing Director Bsnl ... on 2 April, 2026
In the above context, the Hon'ble Allahabad High
Court in "Masan Ali son of Sri Hamid and Ors V. Union
of India (UOI) decided on 16 November 2007 held
"Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 clearly
provides that settlement arrived at by means of
agreement in between employer and the workers
otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding
shall be binding on the parties to the agreement. The
respondents do not dispute that there is agreement and it
is binding on them. If the settlement is between the
employer and the workmen it would be binding on that
particular employee and the employer, if it is between a
recognized union of the employees and the employer, it
will bind all the members of the union and the employer.
That it would be binding of all the members of the union
is a necessary corollary of collective bargaining in the
absence allegation of malafides or fraud.
1