Case name:

Maton Mines Mazdoor Sangh V. Hindustan Zinc Ltd.1

Facts:
The Hindustan Zinc Limited, a Government Company within the meaning of section 617 of
the Companies Act, 1956 was disinvested by the Government retaining 26% share therein.
The remaining was acquired by private individuals. Post disinvestment due to uneconomic
and un-viable earning operations at Maton Mines of the Company the Management decided
to stop operations in the Maton Mines and close the same. 202 workmen were working in the
Mines. The Company floated a special scheme for voluntary retirement of its employees. Of
the 202 employees, 179 opted to take benefit under the voluntary retirement scheme and their
offers to be voluntarily retired being accepted, benefit as per the scheme was given to them.
These 179 workmen took the money given to them. 23 workmen did not opt for voluntarily
being retired under the scheme. They were retrenched by the Management. Compensation for
retrenchment was paid. These 23 workmen raised an industrial dispute and during
conciliation proceedings 21 agreed to accept being voluntarily retired. Thus, of the 23
retrenched workmen, 21 accepted the benefit under the voluntary retirement scheme. In this
manner, of the 202 workmen, 200 stood voluntarily retired from service. Two employees
remained The two agreed to be given fresh appointment in another establishment of the
Company. After six and half years the Union and some of the workmen who had taken
voluntary retirement raised a dispute that the principal focus being violation of Section 25H
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which the lower court held invalid aggrieved by the same
the appellants approached the current court
Issues:
 Whether there lies any time bar on the initiation of the suit settled vide conciliation
process
 Whether the parties are binding to the settlement made in conciliation process of
collective bargaining
Reasoning:
The backdrop of fact concerning voluntary retirement has been noted by court here in above.
When the Company floated the scheme of voluntary retirement, 179 workmen accepted the
benefit under the same. This left 23 workman who were retrenched. Raising an industrial
dispute, 21 also accepted to be voluntarily retired. Thus qua 200 workman the chapter was
closed.
1
Spl. Appl. Writ Nos. 748, 793, 794, 803, 897, 898, 899 of 2016
it is not the case of the workmen that the terms and conditions of the scheme were unfair or
unjust. We also highlight that other than the 179 workmen who had accepted benefit under
the voluntary retirement scheme and who had raised no industrial dispute, remaining 23
raised an industrial dispute. As noted above 21 out of 23 entered into a settlement and
accepted thereafter the benefit under the voluntary retirement scheme. It is these workmen
who are now litigating again. Neither they nor the Union has issued any notice contemplated
by law terminating the settlement.

Judgment:
The writ appeals are accordingly dismissed

Case name

Grindwell N0rt0n Limited and an0ther v Transp0rt and General Kamgar Uni0n and an0ther2

Facts:
C0mpany and said resp0ndent n0s.2 and 3 entered int0 L0ng Term Settlement. Petiti0ner
entered int0 c0llective bargaining 0f demands raised by uni0n as well as c0mpany’s demand
in relati0n t0 pr0ductivity. Resp0ndent n0.1 filed applicati0n seeking stay 0f implementati0n
and effect 0f settlement. Petiti0ner 0pp0sed same and filed reply and Industrial C 0urt after
hearing parties passed 0rder staying effect and implementati0n 0f settlement and directed
petiti0ner t0 pay interim wage rise 0f Rs. 3,000/- per m0nth t0 all w0rkers empl0yed by
petiti0ners. Hence, instant petiti0n was filed.
Issues

Whether, Industrial c0urt is legally justified in staying implementati0n 0f settlement.

Reasoning:
In view 0f fact that reference is still pending bef0re Tribunal effect 0f interim 0rder is t0
imp0se up0n petiti0ner additi0nal m0nthly burden 0f Rs. 3000/- per m0nth with0ut leading t0
higher pr0ductivity agreed t0 be 0ffered by w0rkmen c0ncerned. Equally, it ign0res fact that
each 0f w0rkmen wh0 are b0und by said settlement were und0ubtedly in maj0rity   uni0n
and min0rity membership w0uld have succeeded in delaying settlement at least temp 0rarily
till Industrial C0urt decides.

2
Grindwell N0rt0n Limited and an0ther v Transp0rt and General Kamgar Uni0n and
an0ther(2018 Indlaw MUM 1615)
Conclusion:

Held, impugned 0rder imp0sed up0n petiti0ner 0bligati0n t0 pay ad h0c wage increase 0f Rs.
3,000/- per m0nth per w0rker with0ut any 0bligati0n 0n part 0f w0rker t0 increase
pr0ductivity. settlement is put in 0perati0n and it is said that w0rkmen wh0 are b0und by
higher pr0ductivity have been frustrated 0n tw0 c0unts firstly, 0n being deprived 0f wage
increase by Rs. 5,350/- and at same time by n 0t linking wage increase 0f 0ther uni0ns
members t0 higher pr0ductivity. This is certainly n0t desirable state 0f affairs given fact that
resp0ndent n0.1 has clearly indicated that it is n0t willing t0 increase pr0ductivity 0n basis
that n0 scientific study has been carried 0ut and their submissi0n is that increase in
pr0ductivity is likely t0 have negative effect 0n health 0f w0rkmen. In this scenari0, it is n0t
0pen t0 resp0ndent n0.1-  uni0n t0 prevent 0perati0n 0f settlement in interregnum pending
decisi0n 0f reference. Rule made abs0lute.