1975 (8) TMI 124 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court: Civil Courts lack jurisdiction over Industrial Disputes Act matters. Settlements binding parties only.

PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LTD Versus KAMLEKAR SHANTARAM WADKE OF BOMBAY & ORS

PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LTD Versus KAMLEKAR SHANTARAM WADKE OF BOMBAY & ORS - 1975 AIR 2238, 1976 SCR (1) 427, 1976 SCC (1) 496 Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain the suit.2. Binding nature of settlements under the Industrial Disputes Act.3. Validity of the settlement dated January 9, 1971.4. Grant of injunction by Civil Court.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain the suit:The primary issue was whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the respondents. The Supreme Court held that if the dispute is an industrial dispute arising out of a right or liability under the general or common law and not under the Industrial Disputes Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is alternative. However, if the industrial dispute relates to the enforcement of a right or an obligation created under the Act, then the only remedy available is to get an adjudication under the Act. The Court emphasized that the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred for disputes concerning rights or liabilities created under the Industrial Disputes Act.2. Binding nature of settlements under the Industrial Disputes Act:The respondents argued that the settlement dated December 31, 1966, was binding on all workmen, including those who were not members of the Sabha Union. The Court clarified that a settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act is binding only on the parties to the agreement. The Court noted that the agreement dated December 31, 1966, was a settlement under Section 18(1) and thus binding only on the members of the Sabha Union. The respondents conceded this point, and the main basis of their suit was given up.3. Validity of the settlement dated January 9, 1971:The respondents challenged the validity of the settlement dated January 9, 1971, between the appellant company and the Association Union. They argued that the settlement was not binding on workmen who were not members of the Association Union and that the mandatory requirement of Section 9A of the Act was not followed. The Court found that the settlement dated January 9, 1971, was arrived at in accordance with the provisions of the Act and was binding on the parties involved. The Court also noted that the settlement was acted upon by the workmen, indicating their acceptance.4. Grant of injunction by Civil Court:The Trial Court had granted an injunction restraining the appellant from enforcing the terms of the settlement dated January 9, 1971, against the workmen who were not members of the Association Union. The Supreme Court held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to grant such an injunction as it related to the enforcement of a right created under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court emphasized that the remedy for enforcement of such rights lies exclusively within the machinery provided under the Act. The Court also noted that the injunction granted by the Trial Court was impractical as it attempted to enforce two conflicting settlements simultaneously.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgments and orders of the lower courts. The Court held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit or grant the injunction, as the dispute related to the enforcement of rights created under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court emphasized that the appropriate remedy for such disputes lies within the machinery provided under the Act.