Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.44 seconds)
Masan Ali Son Of Sri Hamid And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through The ... on 16 November, 2007
cites
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 18 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification Of Vacancies) Act, 1959
The Payment Of Wages Act, 1936
Section 3 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Herbertsons Limited vs Workmen Of Herbertsons Limited And Ors on 3 November, 1976
In the case of Herbertsons Limited v. The Workmen of Herbertsons Ltd. and Ors. 1976 (4) SCC 36, the 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. There may be exceptional cases where there may be allegations of mala fides, fraud or even corruption or other inducements. But in the absence of such allegations a settlement in the course of collective bargaining is entitled to due weight and consideration. In connection with justness and fairness of the settlement is observed that this has to be considered in the light of the conditions that were in force at the time of the reference. When, therefore, negations take place which have to be encouraged, particularly between labour and employer in the interest of industrial peace and well being, there is always give and take. The settlement has to be taken as a package deal and when labour has gained in the manner of wages and if there is some reduction in the matter of dearness allowance so far as the Award is concerned, it cannot be said that the settlement as a whole is unfair and unjust. 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 the settlement has to be accepted or rejected as a whole.