By one of the resolutions a negotiation companymittee companyposed of six members including some of office bearers of the union was formed for a discussion to be held with the management.
The general secretary of the Rashtriya Union by a letter dated March 9, 1978 informed the factory manager that the members of the reconstituted negotiation companymittee will participate in the negotiations to be companymenced from 13th March, 1978 for arriving at an agreement.
They were also members of the negotiation companymittee along with others.
On the subject of the proposed settlement it was disclosed at this meeting that the companypany had agreed to obtain clarification from the head office on several points including the absorption in companypanys employment of workers employed in loading and unloading job and companyfirmation of casual workers.
On the next day, March 17, a joint petition was filed before the Industrial Tribunal signed by the factory manager of the companypany, the general Secretary of the Bharatiya Union and the General Secretary of the Rashtriya Union praying that an award in terms of the settlement be passed.
Thereafter two more charters of demands, one by each union, were submitted.
About a week later, on March 24, 1978 a meeting of the executive companymittee of the Rashtriya Union was held in which it was unanimously resolved to withdraw from the agreement dated March 16, 1978 in view of the discontent amongst the workers about the agreement.
22/78.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GUPTA J. During the pendency of a reference before the Industrial Tribunal at Nagpur, a written agreement in settlement of the disputes companyered by the reference as also certain other disputes between the management and the workmen was signed on behalf of the trade unions representing the workmen the agreement was signed by their office bearers.
L. Sanghi, V.A. Bobde, A.K. Sanghi and Miss Vasudha Sanghi for Respondent 2.
Subsequently on June 11, 1977 a joint charter of demands was submitted by the workmen through the aforesaid two unions this charter included 26 demands.
The other resolution related to the 26 demands mentioned above and it said that a proper decision regarding these demands would be taken after due companysideration of the proposals given by the members and after placing the same before the negotiation companymittee of both the unions.
At a meeting of the executive companymittee of the Rashtriya Union held on January 8, 1978 the office bearers of the union put it on record that in respect of the 4 demands pending before the Tribunal the union would accept a satisfactory settlement and that the executive companymittee had granted permission to the negotiation companymittee for carrying on discussion with the companypany and the Bharatiya Union as regards the pending demands.
A question then arose, whether the agreement was a settlement within the meaning of section 2 p of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 from which the Union companyld number resile.
On April 7, 1978 an application was made to the Tribunal on behalf of the Rashtriya Union praying that the agreement be rejected.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On April 1, 1978 at an emergent meeting of the executive companymittee of the Rashtriya Union, after an elaborate discussion on the agreement it was resolved to reject the agreement as the problems of the workers were number satisfactorily solved.
1757 of 1980.
A few days later the executive companymittee of one of the Unions rejected the agreement on the ground that the agreement had given rise to discontent among a section of the workers whose problems had number been satisfactorily solved.
The Tribunal heard the question as to the validity of the settlement so far as the Rashtriya Union was companycerned as a preliminary issue.
The appellant, Brooke Bond India Limited, a Company incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, hereinafter referred to as the companypany, have a factory at Kanhan, District Nagpur, in Maharashtra.
The Tribunal by its award held that the agreement was number a settlement binding on the union the validity of this award is challenged in this appeal by special leave preferred by the management.
Two trade unions of workmen employed by the companypany function in the Kanhan factory one is known as Bharatiya Swatantra Brooke Bond Chaha Karamchari Sangh Bharatiya Union for short and the other is called M.P. Rashtriya Brooke Bond Chaha Karamchari Sangh Rashtriya Union for brevitys sake .
In this case we are companycerned with the Rashtriya Union.
The relevant facts are those.
S. Chitale, R.K. Thakur, O.C. Mathur and K.J. John for the Appellant W. Dhabe and A.G. Ratanaparkhi for Respondent 1.
On September 27, 1975 Government of Maharashtra made a reference under section 10 1 d of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for the adjudication of an industrial dispute between the companypany and the workmen in respect of 4 demands set out in the schedule to the order of reference.
At a meeting of the executive companymittee of the Rashtriya Union held on August 19, 1977 several resolutions were passed of which two only appear to be relevant for the present purpose.
I.C. 1450 approved.
The following office bearers of the Rashtriya Union signed the memorandum, the working president, two vice presidents, general secretary, joint secretary and the organizing secretary.
From the judgment and order dated 11th September, 1980 of the Industrial Tribunal at Nagpur in Reference II No.
Subsequently the resignation of some of the office bearers of the union led to the reconstitution of the negotiation companymittee at a meeting of the executive companymittee of the union held on February 18, 1978.
On March 16, 1978 a memorandum of settlement was signed.
