Dismissed

Air Gasses Mazdoor Sangh v. Indian Air Gasses Ltd. and Others

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2018WRIC/39178/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging an award by a respondent Tribunal was dismissed. The High Court upheld the rejection of a claim for house rent allowance because a settlement agreement dated 17.7.1987 was not registered under Section 6-B of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and thus was not binding.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the Labour Court award rejecting the claim for 20% house rent allowance stands upheld.

Air Gasses Mazdoor Sangh Vs Indian Air Gasses Ltd… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 56

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39178 of 1994

¶3

Petitioner :- Air Gasses Mazdoor Sangh Respondent :- Indian Air Gasses Ltd. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- B.N. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Rakesh Tiwari,M.B. Saxena,SC,Sunil Kumar Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

Sri Sandeep Pandey, holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has assisted the Court.

¶6

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the award passed by respondent no.2. The petitioners have filed proceedings before the respondent no.2 claiming that they are entitled to 20% house rent allowance from the agreement with effect from 17.7.1987. The labour court rejected the claim on the ground that a settlement referred to by the petitioner ought to have registered and as the same was not registered, the same would not be binding under the Act in terms of Section 6-B(4) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Labour court further recorded that the term of the agreement even if it is registered is only one year. The Tribunal relied upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Metal Fabricators India Limited Vs. B.D. Gupta and others, reported in F.L.R. 1976 Vol. 32, page 118 in support of the judgmnet. Finally the labour court recorded the finding that the agreement dated 17.7.1987 has not been registered and it had been registered, the same was not binding after one year of the registration. Section 6-B of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is as under :-

¶7

"6-B. Settlement outside conciliation proceedings - (1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workmen otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall except as provided in sub-section (4), be binding on the parties to the agreement:

¶8

Provided that if the period for which a settlement shall remain in force has not been laid down in such settlement itself, it remain in force for one year from the date of its registration.

¶9

(2) As soon as settlement referred to in sub-section (1) has been arrived at, the parties to the settlement or any one of them may apply to the Conciliation Officer of the area concerned in the prescribed

¶10

manner for registration of the settlement.

¶11

(3) On receipt of application for registration under sub-section (2) the Conciliation Officer or an authority noticed by the State Government in this behalf, either: (i) register the settlement in the prescribed manner, or (ii) refuse registration if it considers it to be inexpedient to do so on public grounds affecting social justice, or if the settlement has been brought about as a result of collusion, fraud or misrepresentation.

¶12

(4) Where a settlement under sub-section (1) has been refused registration, it shall not be binding under this Act."

¶13

Section 6-B (2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act casts a duty on either parties to the settlement to apply to the Conciliation Officer for registration of the settlement. There is no averment in the writ petition that the petitioners' union applied for registration of the said settlement, thus, the agreement/settlement not being registered was not binding under this Act.

¶14

In view of the fact that the settlement entered into was not registered. There was no error in the Tribunal rejecting the application. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶15

It is accordingly dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 3.12.2018 Hasnain

Air Gasses Mazdoor Sangh v. Indian Air Gasses Ltd. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Air Gasses Mazdoor Sangh v. Indian Air Gasses Ltd. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C/M Junior High School and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ansh Gupta Vs Union of India Thru Secry. Human Resources and 3 Ors.

Sunil Kumar Vs Health Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare and Others

U.P.S.R.T.C. Lucknow and Another Vs Sri Rama Kant Shukla and Another

Maheen and Others Vs the Addl. Commissioner Meerut and Others

M/S Siel Ltd. Vs Dy. Labour Commissioner and Another