Case: Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha Vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd. &amp; Another

The main grievance made in the complaint was that the conditions of service of the field staff were unilaterally altered to their disadvantage by the order of the Management dated5 which was contrary to the settlement reached between the parties in the year 1971. It was further stated that the 1971 settlement was based on an agreement reached between the parties during the year 1957. The main thrust of the complainant was that the unilateral change in the conditions of service by the 1975 order was against the 1971 settlement which was based on the 1957 agreement. The Industrial Court, Maharashtra framed the following 4 issues:  (7) Does complaint prove that the respondent has committed unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV by committing failure to implement settlement, dated1 and the agreement arrived at under the correspondent entered into with the complainant in 1957?  (2) Whether the case is barred by limitation?  (3) Whether the complaint is barred by principle of res judicata?  (4) What order?  2. Issue 1 was decided against the Management and it was held by the Industrial Tribunal that the field staff was entitled to the benefits accrued to them under the 1971 settlement. The other three issues were also decided against the Management. On Issue 2 the Industrial Tribunal came to the conclusion that the complaint filed by the appellant was within limitation. The conclusion of the Industrial Tribunal is based on the following reasoning:  It is significant to note and remember that sometime in the year 1970 the Bombay Centre of the Sabha preferred a charter of demands with the respondent Company not only pertaining to the members of the Bombay Branch field force but also to the other clerical workmen employed in the respondent Companys Bombay office establishments which came to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, and the status of the field force came to be, for the first time, disputed by the Company as not being workmen under the provisions of the ID Act, which reference was to be numbered as Ref. (IT) No. 203 of 1970. The said reference was decided on. During the pendency of the said reference the respondent Company entered into All India settlement on the charter of demands on behalf of the members of the field force, but did not implement the same as far as Bombay Branch field force was concerned since the dispute was pending adjudication before the said Industrial Tribunal. Copy of the said All India settlement, dated, in the charter of demands pertaining to the members of the field force all over India is produced at Annexure C to the complaint.  Ref. (IT) No. 203 of 1970 was adjudicated upon against the workmen declaring that they were not workmen. It seems that the said judgment was challenged in the higher courts, but in vain.  It is undisputed that some other developments have taken place after the pronouncement of the order of Industrial Tribunal of Shri M. G. Chitale in January 1975. It is not necessary to refer to the said developments as necessary care in that regard can be taken in the lower part of this order as and when necessary.  However, it is necessary to mention that during the period of all these developments the respondents terminated the services of Sabhas working President without any domestic enquiry. It was challenged before the Delhi Industrial Tribunal. In that proceeding also the management has taken a stand that the reference was not maintainable because the said employee was not a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act. The submissions made by the management found favour with the Tribunal. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, the Union had knocked the doors of the Honble Supreme Court by way of writ petition. The Honble Supreme Court decided the said writ petition on. It has been reported in Workmen v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., 1984 (1) SCC 728 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 183. While deciding the validity and binding nature of the agreement of 1957, the Honble Supreme Court has made observations that the correspondence, Annexure A to the complaint i.e. letters dated7 amounts to agreement. The Honble Supreme Court has condemned the stand taken by the Company for disowning the said agreement. The Honble Supreme Court has observed that no Court of Justice can ever permit such a thing to be done. Necessary care about the contents of the said agreement or correspondence (Annexure A) will be taken later on while considering Issue 1.  Suffice to state that even though the Company did not implement the settlement dated1 as far as Bombay Branch field force was concerned on the ground that dispute was pending adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, and even though Ref. (IT) No. 203 of 1970 was decided against the employees concerned, still the cause of action to claim the implementation of the said agreements or settlement had arisen for the first time after the decision given by the Honble Supreme Court of India in Workmen 1. Therefore, the complaint filed on4 cannot be said to be barred by limitation at all.

Court's reasoning:
We are of the view that the High Court was not justified in reversing the finding of the Tribunal on the issue of limitation. It is obvious from the above quoted reasoning of the High Court that it proceeded primarily on the events which happened during the period from 1975 to 1984. The High Court has taken the history of the events during the said period of about 10 years as the basis for reaching the conclusion that the complaint was barred by limitation. We are of the view that the High Court failed to appreciate the effect of this Courts judgment delivered in the year 1984. The said dismissal (sic decision) gave a fresh cause of action to the complainant to agitate the matter which was unilaterally blocked by the management by its order of June 1975. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the reasoning of the Industrial Tribunal and also that of the High Court. We have no hesitation in holding that we agree with the reasoning of the Industrial Tribunal and we hold that the High Court was not justified in reversing the well reasoned order of the Tribunal on the issue of limitation.