Re-In The Matter Of Elephanta Oil & ... vs .......... on 9 April, 2019
15. Similarly, in P.Virudhachalam and Others vs. Management of Lotus
Mills and another (supra) the Supreme Court held as follows:-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 113 (1.01 seconds)M/S.Harshal Developers Pvt.Ltd vs Mr.Manohar Gopal Bavdekar on 26 November, 2012
riding effect to certain provisions over some contrary provision, which
may be found either in the same enactment or in some other
enactment. (2) In P.Virudhachalam & Ors Vs. The Management of
Lotus Mills reported in AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT 554. the
Supreme Court has dealt with the term "any other law", In any part of
the Act or any other law it is to be understood as exclusion of the law
in which the said term is mentioned.
M/S Heavy Engineering Corporation ... vs Their Workmen on 10 August, 2016
Reference of Herbertsons case in
13
"P. Virudhachalam and others Vs. Management of Lotus Mills and
another" reported in (1998) 1 SCC 650, is in the context of weight
which a settlement carries compared to an award passed after
adjudication. In fact, P. Virudhachalam case deals with binding effect of
settlement under Section 18(3), and not under Section 18(1).
Ashok Leyland Limited vs Industrial Tribunal And Anr. on 9 July, 1999
In P. Virudhachalam v. Lotus Mills, (supra), the Apex Court held as follows at p. 392:
Nlc India Limited vs The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner – ... on 26 February, 2020
But all agreements may not necessarily be settlements
till the aforesaid procedure giving them status of such settlements
gets followed. In other words, under the scheme of the Act, all
settlements are necessarily to be treated as binding agreements
between the parties but all agreements may not be settlements so
as to have binding effect as provided under Section 18(1) or (3) if
the necessary procedure for giving them such status is not followed
in given cases. On the aforesaid scheme of the Act, therefore, it
must be held that the settlement arrived at during conciliation
proceedings on 5-5-1980 between Respondent 1-management on
the one hand and the four out of five unions of workmen on the
other, had a binding effect under Section 18(3) of the Act not only
on the members of the signatory unions but also on the remaining
workmen who were represented by the fifth union which, though
having taken part in conciliation proceedings, refused to sign the
settlement. It is axiomatic that if such settlement arrived at during
the conciliation proceedings is binding on even future workmen as
laid down by Section 18(3)(d), it would ipso facto bind all the
existing workmen who are all parties to the industrial dispute and
who may not be members of unions that are signatories to such
settlement under Section 12(3) of the Act.
M/S.Jyothy Laboratories Limited vs R.Rajendiran on 10 February, 2026
15. The third question that arises is whether the 12(3) settlement
benefits can be denied merely because these workmen were not parties to
4 (2014) 16 SCC 260
12/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 04:30:11 pm )
W.P.Nos.29468 of 2018 and 21613 of 2019
the settlement. Firstly, it can be seen that it is not even the case of the
management that the settlement benefits cannot be extended to non-
signatories. As a matter of fact, it was their contention before the Labour
Court that the workmen were not on rolls as on the date of the settlement.
Once it is found that the finding of the Labour Court that there was no
evidence as to the acceptance of resignation in respect of workmen Nos.1
to 5 and there was no termination or punishment order that was passed
with reference to the workmen Nos.6 and 7, they remained on rolls, there
cannot be any difficulty in holding that the benefits of settlement would
also applied to them. Useful reference in this regard can be made to the
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Barauni Refinery
Pragatisheel Shramik Parishad Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 5,
P.Virudhachalam Vs. Lotus Mills6.
M/S Wearwell (India) Private Limited vs Mohd. Nizam on 2 February, 2022
"This principle of industrial democracy is
the bedrock of the Act", as pointed out in the case
of P. Virudhachalam v. Management of Lotus
Mills MANU/SC/0890/1998: (1998) ILL J389SC.
In all these negotiations based on collective
bargaining individual workman necessarily
recedes to the background. Settle merits will
encompass all the disputes existing at the time of
the settlement except those specifically left out."
M/S Wearwell (India) Private Limited vs Dharmender Kumar Tanti on 3 February, 2022
"This principle of industrial democracy is
the bedrock of the Act", as pointed out in the case
of P. Virudhachalam v. Management of Lotus
Mills MANU/SC/0890/1998: (1998) ILL J389SC.
M/S Wearwell (India) Private Limited vs Umesh Shah on 3 February, 2022
"This principle of industrial democracy is
the bedrock of the Act", as pointed out in the case
of P. Virudhachalam v. Management of Lotus
Mills MANU/SC/0890/1998: (1998) ILL J389SC.
M/S Wearwell (India) Private Limited vs Praveen Kumar on 4 February, 2022
"This principle of industrial democracy is
the bedrock of the Act", as pointed out in the case
of P. Virudhachalam v. Management of Lotus
Mills MANU/SC/0890/1998: (1998) ILL J389SC.