Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.33 seconds)Masan Ali Son Of Sri Hamid And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through The ... on 16 November, 2007
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.
Herbertsons Limited vs Workmen Of Herbertsons Limited And Ors on 3 November, 1976
14 In the case of Herbertsons Limited v. The Workmen of
Herbertsons Ltd and Others reported in 1976 (4) SCC 36, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court considered the effect of the settlement arrived at by the
recognized union of majority workers. It was observed by Goswami J.,
speaking for the Court that when a recognised union negotiates with an
employer, the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is not
necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the
settlement since a recognized union, which is expected to protect the
legitimate interest of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interest of
labour. This would be the normal rule. It was further observed that it is not
possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some parts good
and acceptable and others bad. Unless it can be demonstrated that the
objectionable portion is such that it completely outweighs all the other
advantages gained, the Court will be slow to hold a settlement as unfair and
unjust. Therefore, the settlement has to be accepted or rejected as a whole.
15 At the time of fixation of pay under IDA, the applicant had already
been promoted to the cadre of Telecom Mechanic prior to 1.10.2000 and her
pay was fixed in the IDA scale of pay. Shri.T.O Varghese became Telecom
Mechanic only with effect from 6.11.2002 much after the applicant. Hence
both these employees are in two categories as on 30.9.2000, and cannot be
compared. Comparison can be made only with equals. The applicant and the
persons who are promoted after the promotion of the applicant cannot be
categorised as one group. The drawing of equal pay can be compared only
for the employees who are from the same category and their service incidents
also happened on the same day.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 18 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
1