Binding industrial settlement prevails until lawfully replaced; unilateral withdrawal of check-off facility cannot override it.

A binding industrial settlement granting a pay roll check-off facility remained operative because it had not been lawfully terminated or replaced. The later memorandum did not cover that facility, so it did not displace the earlier settlement. A unilateral Government Order withdrawing the facility could not override a settlement binding under the Industrial Disputes Act, and the Corporation's consequential notification also failed because it rested on that invalid direction and no valid termination under Section 19(2) was shown. The document also notes that the Union, as recognised sole bargaining agent, had standing to maintain the challenge.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Union had locus standi to maintain the writ petition and the appeals on behalf of the workmen; (ii) whether the Government Order dated 10 September 1993 withdrawing the pay roll check-off facility was legal and valid; (iii) whether the consequential Notification dated 21 September 1993 issued by the Corporation was legal and valid.

Issue (i): Whether the Union had locus standi to maintain the writ petition and the appeals on behalf of the workmen.

Analysis: The Union had been recognised by the Corporation as the sole bargaining agent and continued to enjoy that status when the impugned orders were issued. The objection as to locus standi was not raised before the courts below and, on the record, no rival recognised union had displaced the Union's position. The challenge was therefore maintainable.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the Union and against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the Government Order dated 10 September 1993 withdrawing the pay roll check-off facility was legal and valid.

Analysis: The pay roll check-off facility had been created by a binding settlement dated 28 July 1988 and was not displaced by the later memorandum of understanding, which dealt with different service demands and did not cover that facility. The State's direction purportedly issued under Section 34 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 was unnecessary for that subject and could not override an existing binding settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The settlement continued to bind the parties until lawfully terminated and replaced; no fresh settlement substituting it had come into existence.

Conclusion: The Government Order dated 10 September 1993 was held to be invalid and uncalled for, in favour of the Union and against the appellants.

Issue (iii): Whether the consequential Notification dated 21 September 1993 issued by the Corporation was legal and valid.

Analysis: The Corporation's notification was founded entirely on the Government Order and therefore fell with it. Independently, the notification could not amount to a valid termination of the 1988 settlement, because the settlement was still operative and no mutual termination or valid notice under Section 19(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had been shown. Unilateral withdrawal could not displace the binding settlement until replaced by a new one.

Conclusion: The notification was held to be invalid and ineffective, in favour of the Union and against the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The binding settlement granting the check-off facility remained operative and could not be unilaterally withdrawn by the Corporation or overridden by the State's direction. The appeals therefore failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 continues to bind the parties until it is lawfully terminated and replaced by a fresh settlement, and a unilateral executive direction cannot override or nullify that binding industrial settlement.

---