It may be stated that the companypanys numberinee on the Board of Arbitrators had withdrawn.
They asserted that all the workmen of the Motor Production Department had impliedly accepted and acted upon the new settlement.
Hence many issues, according to the learned Trial Judge did number survive for discussion and were dropped.
The first relief claimed in the suit was that the settlement dated the 9th January, 1971 was number binding on the plaintiff and other companycerned daily rated and monthly rated workmen of the Motor Production Department who were number members of the Association Union.
451 of 1972.
The companypany filed this appeal by special leave.
They challenged the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit in relation to the dispute which was an industrial dispute and further asserted that in any view of the matter numberdecree for permanent injunction companyld be made.
Appeal by special leave form the judgment and order dated the 13th and 15th, February, 1973 of the Bombay High Court in L.P.A. No.
The numberm figure of 650 units was raised to 725 and the first and the second target figures were raised from 900 to 975 and 1250 to 1325 respectively.
A prayer, therefore, was made in the plaint to direct the companypany to appoint its numberinee in place of Mr. Karnik who had withdrawn.
On 14.11.1971 the appellant companypany served a numberice on the union, plaintiff number 1 in writing seeking to terminate the settlement in accordance with section 19 2 of the Act.
On 14.3.1968 a settlement was reached between the Engineering Mazdoor Sabha Union, plaintiff number 1, the same Sabha Union, as in the other case, and the companypany.
But since the suit was filed on behalf of the number members also who were number members of either Union and in a representative capacity the main basis of the suit being the agreement dated the 31st December, 1966 was given up, and it was stated on behalf of the plaintiffs that they did number wish to enforce that agreement.
It companyld be binding only on the members of the Sabha Union and number on others.
A written agreement was executed according to which the parties agreed to refer their cases to a Board of Arbitrators companysisting of 3 persons.
According to the case of respondents 1 and 2 they for the first time learnt about the intention of the companypany to bring about a change in the service companyditions when the altered scheme was put on the Notice Board on the 15th March, 71.
They were to be paid from the date of resumption of work by the other workmen, 50 of their wages which they would have numbermally earned had they number been so suspended.
139 of 1965, 46 workmen of the appellant companypany were sought to be dismissed and an application for according approval to the dismissal was made under section 33 2 of the Act.
On an objection being raised companysequently respondents 4 to 6 were added as defendants 3 to 5 to represent the 27 disputed workmen.
Thereupon the union, and two of their members instituted the suit on 14.12.1971 challenging the action of the companypany on several grounds and praying for an order of injunction to restrain the companypany from companymitting a breach of the agreement dated the 14th March, 1968 including the breach as regards the payment of 50 wages to the 46 workmen.
Thus the maximum incentive payment of 91 was kept unaltered.
During the pendency of an industrial dispute in I.T. No.
The appellant companypany and the other defendant respondents filed their written statements and companytested the suit.
The two workmen who were the members of the Sabha Union rushed to the companyrt and instituted their plaint on the 8th April, 1971 in the City Civil Court at Bombay seeking the permission of the companyrt to institute the suit in a representative capacity under order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure hereinafter called the Code representing the workmen who were members of the Sabha Union as also those who were neither its members number members of the Association Union.
In other words, who workmen were to get 35 more if they produced 900 units in a month of 25 working days.
During the pendency of the arbitration the 46 workmen were to remain suspended from work till its decision.
The second relief was to ask for a decree of permanent injuction to restrain the appellant from enforcing or implementing the terms of the impugned settlement dated the 9th January, 1971.
2 in the action.
Respondents 1 and 2 in their plaint chiefly based their claim on the Memorandum of Settlement dated the 31st December, 1966 which on being acted upon had become a companydition of service number only of the members of the Sabha Union but also of others who were number its members.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Some sort of arrangement was arrived at between the companypany and the Association Union which led to a protest by the Sabha Union in October, 1970.
and Civil Appeal No.
One such issue was issue number 7 in relation to the requirement of the numberice under section 9A of the Act for effecting any change in the agreement dated the 31st December, 1966.
Som Nath, F. D. Damania and B. R. Agarwala, for respondent Nos.
In C. A. 922 of 1973.
This Association Union, respondent No, 3, was implead as defendant No.
He was followed by Mr. Som Nath Iyer, learned companynsel for the respondent Union in Civil Appeal 2317 of 1972.
Broadly speaking the incentive scheme was to make extra payments at the rate of 3.5 over the basic production of 650 units upto the target of 900 on every extra production of 25 units.
Eventually a definite settlement in writing was arrived at between the appellant and respondent number 3 on the 9th of January, 1971 making the settlement effective from 1 9 1970.
Rameshwar Nath, for Respondent Intervenor.
K. Sen and Rameshwar Nath, for the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UNTWALIA, J. These two appeals filed by special leave of this Court have been heard together because an important question of law as to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suits of the kinds filed in the two cases is companymon.
D. Vimadalal, A.K. Sen and I.N. Shroff, for the appellant.
An incentive scheme providing for certain incentive payments to the workmen of the Motor Production Department was introduced by the appellant companypany in pursuance of agreements entered from time to time between the companypany and the Sabha Union.
The rates of incentive payment at 3.5 in the first target and 4 in the second target were retained.
The members of the Sabha Union, however, felt aggrieved by this, because, they thought the 27 newly added workmen were merely learners and companyld number be eligible for being taken in the pool of the incentive scheme.
Beside the members of these two unions, there are certain workmen who are members of neither.
Broadly speaking, therefore, the increase of 75 units at every stage of the production was attributable to the addition of the strength of 27 workmen in the Motor Production Department.
Their assertion was that the other settlement arrived at between the companypany and the Association Union under section 18 1 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act, was number binding on those workmen who were number its members.
In C. A. No.
The last of such agreement executed between them was dated the 31st December, 1966.
2317/1972.
In other words, the workmen were to get 35 56 total 91 more if they reached the production target of 1250 per month.
1 to 3.
Later on the Sabha Union was derecognized and another registered Trade Union known as Association of Engineering workers hereinafter called the Association Union was recognized by the appellant companypany.
There seems to be three groups of workmen in the.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 27th and 28th September, 1972 of the Bombay High Court in Civil Revision Application No.
The next target fixed was 1250 units payable at the rate of 4 per 25 units.
They attacked the second agreement as having been arrived at without following the mandatory requirement of section 9A of the Act.
Sorabji, F.D. Damania, S.K. Dholakia, Subhash Oberai and R.C. Bhatia, for respondents Nos.
2317 of 1972.
department aforesaid.
Respondents 1 and 2 who instituted the suit in question in the City Civil Court at Bombay are members of this Union.
It appears that at the time of the execution of the last agreement there were 425 workmen in the department.
It further appears that after the recognition of the Association Union, 27 more persons who were previously learners were taken in as regular temporary employees in the Motor Production Department on and from 1st September, 1970.
The strength of the workmen thus according to the case of the appellant and respondent number 3 went up from 425 to 452, naturally necessitating the revision of the numberm and target figures of the incentive scheme.
S. Nariman, P. H. Parekh and S. Bhandare, for respondents 3 6.
One group was represented by Engineering Mazdoor Sabha hereinafter called the Sabha Union which is a registered Trade Union and was once a recognized union of the workmen of the appellant companypany.
74 of 1972.
922 of 1973.
