2005 (11) TMI 523 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and justification of the bipartite settlement dated 18.8.1996.
2. Binding nature of the settlement on non-members of the Association.
3. Justification of the Central Government's reference to the Industrial Tribunal.
4. Validity of requiring non-members to sign a receipt to avail benefits of the settlement.
5. Appropriateness of judicial intervention in the reference made by the Central Government.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Justification of the Bipartite Settlement Dated 18.8.1996:
The settlement dated 18.8.1996 was entered into between the Bank and the Association (third respondent) under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Federation (second respondent) did not sign this settlement, leading to a dispute. The settlement was binding only on the parties to the agreement, i.e., the Bank and the Association. The Court noted that the settlement was not entered before a conciliation officer or tribunal, thus it did not bind those who were not parties to it.

2. Binding Nature of the Settlement on Non-Members of the Association:
The settlement included a clause that allowed non-members of the Association to avail of its benefits by signing a receipt. The Court held that this requirement was legal and justified, as it protected the Bank's interests. The settlement's benefits were extended to non-members who accepted it, and the receipt did not contain any terms detrimental to them. Therefore, the Bank's action of requiring a receipt was upheld.

3. Justification of the Central Government's Reference to the Industrial Tribunal:
The Central Government made a reference under Section 10(1) of the Act to the Industrial Tribunal, questioning the legality of requiring non-members to sign a receipt. The Court found this reference redundant and uncalled for, as there was no actual dispute or apprehended dispute between the Bank and the Federation. The reference did not specify any precise demand or refusal, making it ineffective and incapable of providing any benefit to the Federation.

4. Validity of Requiring Non-Members to Sign a Receipt to Avail Benefits of the Settlement:
The Court held that the Bank was justified in asking non-members to sign a receipt to avail the settlement benefits. This practice was deemed necessary to protect the Bank's interests and ensure that non-members who wanted to benefit from the settlement accepted its terms. The format of the receipt was considered non-detrimental and appropriate.

5. Appropriateness of Judicial Intervention in the Reference Made by the Central Government:
The Court emphasized that normally, writ petitions against references under Section 10 of the Act should not be entertained as parties can address their grievances before the tribunal. However, in this case, the futility of the reference was evident from the terms and admitted facts, requiring no further evidence. The Court cited precedents allowing judicial intervention when the reference is clearly redundant or without merit.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the judgments and orders of the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court were set aside. The reference made by the Central Government to the Industrial Tribunal was quashed, with the Court concluding that there was no industrial dispute or apprehended dispute warranting such a reference. The Bank's requirement for non-members to sign a receipt to avail settlement benefits was upheld as legal and justified.