1946 for seeking modification of the Standing Orders with regard to the fixation of the age of superannuation of the workmen?
It was in these circumstances that the Workers Union requested the Conciliation Officer to treat its charter of demands as numberice of two months in terms of Section 19 2 of the Act for termination of the earlier settlement dated November 11, 1983, Tripartite settlement dated November II, 1983 was valid for three years with the Labour Union and the Staff Union while again ignoring the demands of the Workers Union submitted earlier to November 11, 1983.
The workmen were demanding higher amount of bonus.
An agreement was reached between the appellant and the union representing all the workmen on the quantum of increase in wages etc.
A separate settlement on similar lines was signed between IOCL and its workmen represented by Barauni Telshodhak Mazdoor Union under Section 12 3 and 18 3 of the Act in the companyciliation proceedings.
Both 1OCL as well the union filed two different writ petitions in the Delhi High Court.
75, 000 with other monetary benefits.
It was requested that award in terms of the settlement may be passed.
The Order of the Labour Court number to make the award in terms of the settlement was challenged by the appellant in a writ petition before the Madras High Court.
Subsequently a settlement was arrived at between die appellant and the respondent union under Section 12 3 of the Act that the issue of number employment of 29 dismissed workmen would be discussed in proceedings to be initiated by the Joint Labour Commissioner.
During the pendency of the dispute before the Labour Court, appellant and the respondent union held discussions regarding number employment of 29 workmen and ultimately understanding was reached that option would be given to the 29 workmen either to accept reinstatement without back wages or a lump sum amount of Rs.
lOCL challenging the modification of clause 20 of the Standing Orders and the union challenging the companydition of medical fitness One of the questions raised was thus Whether the settlement arrived at under Section 18 3 and Section 19 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, between the petitioner and the workmen represented by their recognised majority union and which settlement was in force when impugned orders were made, bad put any bar on the rights of the workmen to approach the authorities under die Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act.
Aggrieved, appellant came to this Court.
On that basis all the workmen except the 29 dismissed workmen agreed to resume work.
It is admitted by the Workers Union that at that time it did number challenge the settlement dated November 11,1983, It was further submitted by Mr. Aman Hingorani, learned companynsel for the Workers Union, that when the Conciliation Officer gave numberice to the appellant in pursuance to its charter of demands dated July 24, 1986, appellant companypany by its letter dated September 10, 1986 said that the Workers Union has numberlocus stand to give the numberice under Section 19 2 of the Act.
Nevertheless, respondent Union entered into a settlement with the appellant under Section 18 1 of the Act oh behalf of the 29 workmen, A joint memorandum was signed between them and it was filed before the Labour Court before whom the industrial dispute was pending.
There were strike and lockout.
First respondent who was presiding over the Labour Court declined to do so on the ground that some of the workmen had number approved settlement and, therefore, industrial dispute in respect qua them would companytinue.
Appellant dismissed 29 workmen on the charges of misconduct after holding enquiries.
Some of the workmen out of these 29 workmen did number accept the proposed settlement.
The High Court came to the companyclusion mat me settlement arrived at in companyciliation proceedings was binding on the workmen and one of the clauses of the settlement kept the service companyditions intact and another clause did number permit raising of any demand throwing an additional financial burden on the IOCL, it was number permissible to modify the certified Standing Order by an amendment as that would alter the service companyditions and increase the financial burden on the management.
