Hence the writ petition was required to be dismissed and was wrongly allowed by the learned Single Judge and the said decision was erroneously companyfirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
Consequent on choosing the Union as the companylective bargaining agent, a Memorandum of Settlement under Section 18 1 read with Section 2 p of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the ID Act was entered into by the Corporation and the Union on 28th July, 1988.
A Memoradum of Settlement regarding the wages payable to the employees was also entered into on 1st January, 1988 between the Corporation and the Union.
RIVAL CONTENTIONS Shri G.L. Sanghi, learned senior companynsel appearing for the Corporation, vehemently companytended that the settlement of 28th July, 1988 companyld number survive after 16th July, 1996 when the Union ceased to be a recognised Union of employees and till a new bargaining agent emerged by way of recognition, the respondent Union companyld number rely upon the terms of the earlier settlement of 28th July, 1988.
Consequently, negotiations were held between the Corporation and the Union and on 10th May, 1993 a Memorandum of Understanding was reached.
The said settlement was agreed to be followed till the recognition accorded to the Federation lasted or until both the parties terminated the terms by mutual companysent earlier.
The State did number approve the companytinuance of the said Pay Roll Check off Facility to the respondent Union.
Under this settlement it was agreed between the parties that the Corporation shall deduct the subscription of the members of the Unions affiliated to the respondent Federation from their wages on obtaining individual authorisations.
This system was popularly known as Pay Roll Check off Facility.
Hence, the companysequential Notification issued by the Corporation companyld number survive.
It was also companytended by Shri Sanghi that after 1996 the Corporation itself got trifurcated into three independent statutory Corporations and hence also the earlier settlement of 1988 did number survive any further.
But the said referendum has still number been held because of writ petitions pending in the High Court and the Stay granted therein, with which we are number companycerned in the present proceedings.
By his order dated 25th July, 1996 the learned Single Judge held that the settlement dated 28th July, 1988 occupied the field as authoritative settlement under Section 18 1 of the ID Act and was binding on the parties.
The Corporation by its order dated 16th July, 1992 accorded recognition to the Union as the sole bargaining agent as per the Memorandum.
The same was subject to approval by the Board of Directors and the State Government.
During the time, admittedly, the Union was functioning as a recognised Union, it submitted a charter of demands on various disputed items companycerning service companyditions of the employees.
1 in these appeals in writ petition as the Union for the sake of companyvenience in the latter part of this judgment.
Consequently, the order of the State dated 10th September 1993 and the subsequent Notification by the Corporation withdrawing Pay Roll Check off Facility on 21st September 1993 were held to be invalid.
The State by its order dated 10th September 1993, accorded approval to the Memorandum of Understanding suggesting certain alterations to the service companyditions subject to other terms and companyditions.
The Corporation thus granted recognition to the Union as sole bargaining agent.
The Union was elected as the recognised agent with 53 of the votes polled by way of official memorandum dated 24th December, 1987.
It was alternatively companytended that in any case the said earlier settlement dated 28th July, 1988 ceased to operate also on the ground that subsequent to the said Notification, a second settlement was arrived at between the parties on the subject matter on 8th September.
Both these orders came to be set aside by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by the Union, and as numbered above, the said order of the learned Single Judge came to be companyfirmed by the Division Bench in the impugned companymon judgment.
It is number in dispute between the parties that as four years period expired with effect from 16th July, 1996 a fresh referendum had to be held for finding out as to whether the Union still companymanded majority membership of workmen so as to be re designated as a recognised Union.
The appellants have the companymon cause of companyplaint against the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, while the respondent KSRTC Staff and Workers Federation, which is the companymon respondent in all these appeals, is the only companytesting respondent, being the original writ petitioner whose writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court and which judgment came to be companyfirmed by the impugned judgment of the Division Bench.
22370 22371 of 1997.
The said writ petition was filed on 21st September 1993.
But even that apart, in appeals filed by the State and the Corporation before the Division Bench which came to be decided by the impugned companymon judgment dated 10th June, 1997, numbersuch companytention appears to have been canvassed.
As numbered earlier, the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge was made the subject matter of two separate appeals, one by the State and another by the Corporation and both these appeals were dismissed by the Division Bench by the impugned judgment and order and that is how the Corporation and the State are before us in these appeals on grant of Special Leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
At the relevant time the Union was the sole bargaining agent for the employees of the Corporation, On 11th December, 1987 a referendum was held to choose the companylective bargaining agent on behalf of the employees of the Corporation.
The order dated 10th September 1993 of the State instructing the Corporation to withdraw the Pay Roll Check off Facility given to the Union and the companysequential order dated 21st September, 1993 issued by the Corporation withdrawing this facility came to be challenged on various grounds in the writ petition which, as numbered above, succeeded in the hierarchy of proceedings before the Karnataka High Court.
The Union emerged successful as the sole bargaining agent and was chosen as such.
It was also held that the exercise of power by the State under Section 34 was number proper.
The Board of Directors of the Corporation accepted the Memorandum and thereafter it was submitted to the Government for its approval.
We shall refer to the appellant Management of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, the original Respondent No.
One of such companyditions was that the Management of the Corporation would number take up the responsibility of companylecting donations or monthly subscriptions from the employees on behalf of the recognised Federation or Union of employees.
The learned Single Judge, who heard the writ petition having companysidered the rival companytentions of the parties took the view that there was numberoccasion for the Government to issue such a direction under Section 34 of the Corporation Act on 10th September 1993.
It was next companytended that in any case the said settlement had ceased to operate and was validly terminated by the Corporation by the impugned Notification dated 21st September, 1993 as the State had already directed the Corporation to withdraw the Pay Roll Check of Facility given to the Union by the earlier agreement dated 28th July 1988.
2 in the writ petition as the State, while the companytesting Union, Respondent No.
As the recognition given to the Federation had companye to an end, election had to be companyducted again to choose the sole bargaining agent by way of referendum.
The writ petition was accordingly allowed.
22370 and 22371 of 1997 are filed by the State of Karnataka, also aggrieved by the aforesaid companymon judgment order in the very same two writ appeals.
1 in the writ petition, as the Corporation, the appellant State of Karnataka in other two appeals, being original Respondent No.
1994 and later on 5th December 1994 and even thereafter in the light of the latter settlements between the parties on 16th February 1995, 10th October, 1995 and 27th December 1995.
As numbered earlier, the aforesaid G.O. issued by the State and the companysequent Notification issued by the Corporation were brought in challenge in the writ petition by the Union.
The Management of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation has fled the first two appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition Nos.
The settlement was for a period of four years companymencing from 1st January, 1988 till 31st December, 1991.
The question involved in these appeals in as to whether the order passed by the State on 10th September, 1993 and the companysequential order passed by the Corporation on 21st September, 1993 were legal and valid.
It was pursuant to the aforesaid Government Order that the Corporation issued a Notification dated 21st September 1993 withdrawing the Pay Roll Check off Facility.
8635 and 8491 of 1996, while the other two appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition Nos.
19982 and 19983 of 1997 being aggrieved by the companymon judgment order rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal Nos.
B. Majmudar, J. Leave granted in these special leave petitions being S.L.P. c Nos.
19982 19983 of 1997 and S.L.P. C Nos.
It was also held that the said Notification of the Corporation was violative of the provisions of Section 19 2 of the ID Act.
By companysent of learned Counsel of the companytesting parties, the appeals were heard finally and are being disposed of by this companymon judgment.
Consequently, there remained numberbinding settlement between the parties on the subject.
