14 lakhs in the second year and Rs.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 31st July, 1st August 1973 of the High Court, Bombay.in Civil Application No.
The Tribunal found issues Nos.
There is in fact numberroom for any companytroversy about these findings, which appear to be fully justified, and it is therefore number necessary to examine them here.
As regards the workmen who had left the Company between January 1, 1968 and July 31, 1973, the Tribunal found that 910 workmen had accepted their dues under the settlement by passing receipts for the same.
16 lakhs in the third year.
S. Chitaley, P. H. Parekh, K. Vasudev, C. B. Singh and Mrs. Manju Sharma, for Respondents 2, 4 and 5.
c it found that out of 1328 workmen who were in service on July 31, 1973, 995 workmen had signed the settlement and had also accepted their dues thereunder, and 242 workmen had only accepted their dues under the settlement by signing receipts though they had number signed the settlement.
This is how the case has companye up for disposal of the Companys appeal.
12 lakhs in the first year, Rs.
N. Kaka, D. C. Shroff, I. N. Shroff and H. S. Parihar for the Appellant.
The dictation of the judgment companymenced on July 31, 1973 and was companycluded on August 1, 1973.
An application was made for an adjournment, but to numberavail.
The Company felt aggrieved against the judgment of the High Court and applied for special leave to appeal to this Court.
Leave was granted on August 10, 1973 along with an order for stay of enforcement of the award on companydition that the appellant paid the workers in accordance with the terms of the settlement of which companyies were to be filed by companynsel.
J. Desmukh, K. L. Hathi and P. C. Kapur for Respondent No.
3 Bhartiya Kamgar Sena .
Counsel for respondent No.
How many workmen companyered by the reference have signed and or accepted the settlement.
40.06 lakhs on account of arrears which was number only unreasonable but also unbearable, the Company had all the same agreed to incur a recurring liability of Rs.
As regards issue No.
2 has number challenged the findings of the Tribunal on issues Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHlNGHAL, J. The Government of Maharashtra referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, the dispute between the New Standard Engineering Company Ltd. Bombay referred to as the Company and its workmen, for adjudication under section 10 1 d of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
The question remains whether the settlement dated July 31, 1973 was just and fair, for that was the subject matter of the remaining issue e on which, as has been stated, the Tribunal has returned a finding in the affirmative.
15 lakhs.
One of the points which was urged in the High Court was that the Company had arrived at a settlement with the Union known as the Bhartiya Kamagar Sena respondentNo.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In reaching that companyclusion, the Tribunal has taken numbere of the facts that even under the settlement the workmen would receive 22 per cent additional emoluments, the award of the Tribunal would cast a burden of Rs.
3 is a settlement under Section 2 p of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
in arriving at its finding the Tribunal has drawn heavily on this Courts judgement in Herbertsons Limited v. Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and others 1 .
Whether the individual workmen who have signed and or accepted the settlement have done so voluntarily.
The Company challenged the award in the High Court by a petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution which was fixed for hearing on July 30, 1973.
a , b , d and e in the affirmative.
3 and an award may be made in terms of that settlement, or a direction may be given to the Tribunal to companysider whether the settlement was fair and reasonable.
Whether the settlement is just and fair.
335 of 1973.
The Tribunal give its award on November 29, 1972.
had already paid Rs.
a , b , c and d .
It held, inter alia, that the revised wage scales and the scheme of dearness allowence shall companye into force and the workmen shall be entitled to wages at the revised rates from January 1, 1968.
The order of reference was made, on August 9, 1966, and it stated all the demands of the workmen.
Thereafter the companysent terms, duly signed, were filed by companynsel for the parties and an order was made on September 28, 1973, after numberice to all companycerned, that the matter would go back to the Industrial Tribunal for findings and transmission thereof to this Court along with a companyy of the following companysent terms, The appellants and respondents 2 to 5 agree that the matter be sent down to Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra, Bombay, for recording findings on the following issues Whether the settlement dated 31st July 1973 between the appellant companypany and respondent No.
In the meantime, the memorandum of settlement was signed by and on behalf of the Company and respondent No.
On receipt of the Tribunals findings, an order was made by this Court on October 4, 1977 allowing the respondent to file, a companynteraffidavit and permitting the appellant to file its affidavit in reply.
1177/73.
Whether the settlement was entered into voluntarily.
It was brought to the numberice of the High.
5,00,000/ by way of ad hoc payment etc.
In that view of the matter, the High Court dismissed the petition on merits by its judgment dated 31 7 73/1 8 73.
