Neeta Sawant WP 11681 of 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.11681 OF 2014

Tata Yazaki Employees Union

(Now Yazaki India Employees Union)

...Petitioner

V/s.

Tata Yazaki Auto Comp. Ltd

(Now Yazaki India Ltd)

...Respondent

________________

Mr. Rahul Nerlekar for the Petitioner.

Mr. Varun Joshi with Mr. Chetan Alai and Mr. Rishabh N. Chaurasia for

the Respondent.

________________

CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

JUDGMENT RESD. ON : 17 JULY 2026

JUDGMENT PRON. ON : 30 JULY 2026

JUDGMENT:

1) By this Petition, the Petitioner-Union has challenged the

orders dated 9 October 2013 on Applications at Exhibits-U-20 and U-22

and �nal judgment and order dated 9 April 2014 passed by the Member,

Industrial Court, Pune. The Industrial Court has dismissed complaint of

unfair labour practice �led by the Petitioner-Union demanding bene�ts

of the Settlement dated 30 September 2004 to its members, who were

PAGE NO. 1 of 15

30 July 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 11681 of 2014

erstwhile trainees and temporary workmen employed in the Respondent-

Company.

2) Petitioner is a trade union registered under the Trade

Unions Act, 1926. It is also a recognised union under the Maharashtra

Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices

Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) in respect of workman employed in the

Respondent-factory. Respondent is engaged in the busin ess of

manufacture of wire harness for automobile industry in India having its

factory at Pune. According to the Petitioner, Respondent had employed

about 500 permanent workers and about 3,000 workmen on

contract/training basis. In the year 2002, another Union had raised a

wage dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was referred

for adjudication and was registered as Reference (IT) No. 24 of 2002.

Petitioner entered into a Settlement dated 30 September 2004 with the

Respondent in respect of service conditions of workmen employed by the

Respondent. Petitioner also espoused the cause of certain trainees /

temporary employees. Another Supplementary Agreement dated 9 April

2005 was executed in respect of such trainees / temporary workmen,

under which they were granted permanency, but were granted lesser

bene�ts than other permanent workmen performing the same work.

3) In the pending Reference (IT) No. 24 of 2002, the Settlement

dated 30 September 2004 was �led and Award was made on 20 September

2006, which was made enforceable w.e.f. 3 January 2007. According to the

Petitioner, once award is made in respect of settlement, the same

becomes applicable to all workmen of the Respondent-Factory. According

PAGE NO. 2 of 15

30 July 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 11681 of 2014

to the Petitioner, even temporary/contract workers became entitled to

bene�ts under the Settlement dated 30 September 2004 upon making of

Award. However, since bene�ts of the Settlement dated 30 September

2004 were not extended to the trainee / temporary wor kers, the

Petitioner-Union �led complaint of unfair labour practice under Item-9 of

Schedule-IV of the MRTU & PULP Act before the Industrial Court, Pune,

which was registered as Complaint (ULP) No.12 of 2007. Respondent �led

written statement opposing the Complaint. The Complaint was allowed

by the Industrial Court by judgment and order dated 23 January 2012

which was challenged by the Respondent by �ling Writ Petition No. 4937

of 2012. By order dated 10 October 2012, this Court set aside the

judgment of the Industrial Court and remanded the Complaint for fresh

adjudication by the Industrial Court. Petitioner thereafter led additional

evidence and also �led Application at Exh.U-20 for effecting corrections

in the depositions already recorded. Another Application at Exh.U-22 was

�led by the Petitioner for issuance of witness summons to advocate

alleging that he had misled the committee at the instance of the

Respondent to enter into Supplementary Settlement. By orders dated 9

October 2013, the Industrial Court rejected the applications at Exh-U-20

and Exh.U-22. Thereafter, the Industrial Court proceeded to dismiss

Complaint (ULP) No.12 of 2007 by judgment and order dated 9 April

2014. Petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 9 October 2013 and �nal

judgment and order dated 9 April 2013 and has �led the present Petition.

4) By order dated 4 February 2015, the Petition has been

admitted but interim relief was refused. The Petition is called out for �nal

hearing.

PAGE NO. 3 of 15

30 July 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 11681 of 2014

5) Mr. Nerlekar, the learned counsel appearing for the

Petitioner submits that the Industrial Court has grossly erred in

dismissing Complaint (ULP) No. 12 of 2007. That the Complaint has been

erroneously dismissed on the ground of limitation ignoring the position

that the cause of action for �ling the Complaint had arisen on 3 January

2007 when the Award had become enforceable. That the Complaint was

�led for implementation of the Award to the erstwhile trainee / temporary

workers. That the Industrial Court has erroneously ignored the ratio of

Full Bench judgment of this Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport

Corporation vs. Premlal Khatri Gajbhiye.

1

6) Mr. Nerlekar further submits that though the Industrial

Court framed speci�c Issue No.4A in respect of entitlement of bene�ts of

Award, the same issue is not answered by the Industrial Court. That

failure to decide the said issue by recording cogent reasons renders the

impugned order of the Labour Court ex facie illegal. He relies on

provisions of Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) in

support of his contention that the Award made under Section 18(3) binds

all employees in the establishment on the date of dispute or those who

join subsequent to the date of dispute. That since Award under Section

18(3) of the ID Act gives better bene�ts than the one under Section 18(1),

the former would prevail over the latter. That therefore the Award in

terms of settlement dated 30 September 2004 applies to all the workman

under Section 2(s) of the ID Act irrespective of their nomenclature as

temporary / permanent / contract / trainee workers. That it is erroneous

1 2003 II CLR 387

PAGE NO. 4 of 15

30 July 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 11681 of 2014

to interpret provisions of Section 18(3)(d) of the ID Act by restricting the

bene�t only to permanent employees on the date of dispute and that the

same needs to be applied even to employees who are made permanent

during pendency of the dispute. In support of his contention, Mr. Nerlekar

relies on following judgments:

i.Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Premlal

Khatri Gajbhiye (supra)

ii.Devinder Singh vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur

2

iii.Punjab National Bank and ors. vs. Manjeet Singh and Anr.

3

iv.National Engineering Industries Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan and

Ors.

4

v.P. Virudhachalam and Ors. vs. Management of Lotus Mills and

Anr.

5

vi.Barauni Re�nery Pragatisheel Shramik Parishad vs. Indian Oil

Corporation Limited

6

and

vii.New India Motors (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. K.T. Morris

7

7) Per contra, Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the

Respondent opposes the Petition submitting that the Industrial Court has

rightly dismissed the Complaint �led by the Petitioner-Union. That the

Settlement dated 30 September 2004 applied only to p ermanent

workmen, whereas, Supplementary Settlement dated 9 April 2005 was

entered into speci�cally for the purpose of governing the terms and

conditions of temporary workers / trainees. That the temporary workers /

trainees secured the bene�t of permanency under the Supplementary

Settlement dated 9 April 2005 and that the same was a package deal for

them. Having accepted the package deal, they cannot attempt to wriggle

out of unfavourable terms and conditions and seek enforcement of better

2 (2011) 6 SCC 584

3 (2006) 8 SCC 647

4 (2000) 1 SCC 371

5 (1998) 1 SCC 650

6 (1991) 1 SCC 4

7 (1960) 3 SCR 350

PAGE NO. 5 of 15

30 July 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 11681 of 2014

terms and conditions of Settlement dated 30 September 2004 which never

applied to them. That over and above permanency, the temporary workers

/ trainees were also granted additional bene�ts under the Supplementary

Settlement. He also relies on subsequent Settlement dated 21 July 2011

under which the Union had decided to give up all the past claims. He

prays for dismissal of the Petition.

8) Rival contentions urged on behalf of the parties now fall for

my consideration.

9) Complaint (ULP) No. 12 of 2007 was �led by the Petitioner

seeking bene�ts of the Settlement dated 30 September 2004 to its

members, whose names were included in Annexure A, B and C to the

Compliant and who were essentially the temporary workers or trainees.

The Compliant sought following prayers:

a) it be declared that the Respondent has engaged in the unfair labour practice

as alleged and they may be directed to cease the same.

b) The respondent may the directed to extend all the bene�ts of the settlement

dt-30-9-04 to the employees whose names appear in Annexure-I to settlement

dt-9-4-05 and in Annexure – A, B, C to this complaint from the date they are

con�rmed in service.

c) The Respondent may be directed to pay overtime to the employees twice the

ordinary rate of wages i.e. twice the gross wages from inception and in future.

d) The Respondent may be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to

the complainant.

e) Such other orders as are just may be passed.

10) Thus, the Complaint was �led for seeking bene�ts of the

Settlement dated 30 September 2004 to the workers whose names appear

PAGE NO. 6 of 15

30 July 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 11681 of 2014

in the Annexures to Supplementary Settlement dated 9 April 2005. The

workers whose names were included in Annexures to the Settlement were

apparently temporary workers and trainees. As observed abov e,

Respondent had already entered into separate settlement dated 30

September 2004 with the Petitioner-Union dealing with the terms and

conditions of services of permanent workers on the rolls of the Company

as on 1 April 2004. Para-1.2.1 of the Settlement dated 30 September 2004

reads thus:

1.2.1 All the terms and conditions of this settlement shall be applicable to and

binding on all the permanent workmen who are on the rolls of the Company as

on 1.04.2004.

11) The Settlement dated 30 September 2004 came into effect

from 1 April 2004 and remained in force upto 31 March 2007. There is no

dispute to the position that at the time of execution of the Settlement

dated 30 September 2004, the trainees/temporary workers were yet to be

made permanent. Therefore, the bene�ts of the Settlement dated 30

September 2004 were not extended to such temporary workers/trainees.

12) When a separate Supplementary Settlement was executed

with the Petitioner-Union on 9 April 2005 to consider the demand of the

Union for permanency of trainees and temporary workers, the

Respondent-Company decided to confer the bene�t of permanency on

trainees who had completed the training period successfully and to

workmen who had served as temporaries. Thus, persons name d in

Annexure-I of the Supplementary Settlement were con�rmed in service

PAGE NO. 7 of 15

30 July 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 11681 of 2014

w.e.f. 1 April 2005. The relevant covenants of the Supplementary

Settlement dated 9 April 2005 reads thus:

It is agreed by and between the parties as under: -

1) The trainees who have completed their training period successfully and the

workmen who have served as temposaries in the Company and whose names

have been stipulated in Annexure I to this settlement shall be con�rmed in the

services of the Company w.e.f 1

st

April, 2005.

2) It is hereby agreed and understood by and between the parties to this

settlement that the Trainees and Temporaries due for con�rmation from 1

st

April, 2005 onwards shall be con�rmed on the basis of their overall work

performance and discipline.

3) The workmen con�rmed as above shall be placed in new category i.e.

category IV, the details of which are as stated in Annexure II to this settlement

4) These workmen shall not be entitled to any other monetary bene�ts as

applicable under settlement dated 30/09/04 for the workmen who are working

as permanent workmen prior to the date of said settlement.

5) This settlement shall be treated as supplementary to the settlement dated

30/09/04 and shall remain in force till the existence of the said settlement, i.e.

up to 31

st

March, 2007.

6) All terms and conditions except wages scales & other monetary bene�t of

the settlement-dated 30/09/04 shall be applicable to the workmen con�rmed

under this settlement.

13) Thus, the Settlement dated 9 April 2005 was agreed to be

treated as supplementary to the settlement dated 30 September 2004. It

was further agreed that the workers named in Annexure-I would not be

entitled to any monetary bene�ts applicable under the Settlement dated

30 September 2004. It was further agreed that all terms and conditions

except wage scales and other monetary bene�ts of Settlement dated 30

September 2004 shall be applicable to the named workmen in Annexure-I.

In Annexure-II to the Supplementary Settlement, certain additional

monetary bene�ts were extended to the temporary workers and trainees.

PAGE NO. 8 of 15

30 July 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 11681 of 2014

14) Thus, there is no dispute to the position that the Settlement

dated 30 September 2004 applied to permanent workmen whereas the

Supplementary Settlement dated 9 April 2005 applied to temporary

workers and trainees. Therefore, there is no question of contractual

extension of bene�ts of the Settlement dated 30 September 2004 to the

temporary workers / trainees. Mr. Nerlekar also fairly does not dispute

this position. He however relies on provisions of Section 18(3) of the ID

Act in support of his contention that the Settlement dated 30 September

2004 is no longer a mere contract but has been converted into Award

under Section 18(3) of the Act. He relies on Award dated 20 September

2006 made in Reference (IT) No. 24 of 2002. That Reference was made at

the instance of the other Union-Rashtriya Shramik Aghadi in connection

with Charter of Demands dated 20 August 2001 relating to basic wages

and classi�cation, service increments, festival advances, provision for

uniform, shoes etc. During pendency of that Reference, settlement dated

30 September 2004 came to be executed with the Petitioner-Union. The

Settlement Agreement dated 30 September 2004 was apparently �led in

the pending Reference (IT) No. 24 of 2002 and the Respondent-employer

contended before the Industrial Tribunal that by virtue of the Settlement

dated 30 September 2004, the Company had already agreed to grant much

higher bene�ts to the permanent workmen than the Charter of Demands.

The Industrial Court therefore proceeded to accept the Settlement dated

30 September 2004 to be fair, reasonable, proper and bene�cial to the

workmen. The Industrial Tribunal accordingly made an Award in terms of

the Settlement dated 30 September 2004 while answering in the negative

about the Charter of Demands submitted by the Rashtriya Shramik

PAGE NO. 9 of 15

30 July 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 11681 of 2014

Aghadi. The Industrial Court also upheld the locus of the Petitioner-

Union to enter into settlement with the Respondent.

15) Mr. Nerlekar submits that since the Settlement dated 30

September 2004 got converted into Award dated 20 September 2006,

provisions of Section 18(3) of the ID Act get attracted and therefore the

Settlement would become applicable to all the workmen of t he

Respondent including the erstwhile temporary workers and trainees.

Section 18 of the ID Act deals with persons on whom settlements and

awards are binding and provides thus:

18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.—

(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workman

otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the

parties to the agreement.

(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), an arbitration award which has

become enforceable shall be binding on the parties to the agreement who

referred the dispute to arbitration.

(3) A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings under this

Act or an arbitration award in a case where a noti�cation has been issued

under sub-section (3A) of section 10A or an award of a Labour Court, Tribunal

or National Tribunal which has become enforceable shall be binding on—

(a) all parties to the industrial dispute;

(b) all other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings as parties

to the dispute, unless the Board, arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal or

National Tribunal, as the case may be, records the opinion that they

were so summoned without proper cause;

(c) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is an employer,

his heirs, successors or assigns in respect of the establishment to which

the dispute relates;

(d) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is composed of

workmen, all persons who were employed in the establishment or part

of the establishment, as the case may be, to which the dispute relates

on the date of the dispute and all persons who subsequently become

employed in that establishment or part.

PAGE NO. 10 of 15

30 July 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 11681 of 2014

16) Thus, under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 18, a

settlement arrived at between the employer and workman (otherwise than

the one in the course of conciliation proceedings) is binding on the parties to

the agreement. However, under sub-section (3) of Section 18, if

settlement is arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings or if an

Award of Labour Court / Tribunal is made, which has become enforceable,

then such settlement binds all parties to the industrial dispute, all parties

who are summoned to appear before the Labour Court / Tribunal on

employment, as well as all persons who are employed in the

establishment to which the dispute relates on the date of the dispute and

all persons who subsequently become employed in that establishment.

17) In my view, the true purport of provisions of Section 18(3) of

the ID Act is to make applicable the settlement to non-signatories as

opposed to provisions of Section 18(1), under which settlement applies

only to the signatories. Thus, though the Settlement dated 30 September

2004 was executed between the Petitioner-Union and Respondent, the

bene�t of the same would be applicable only to the members of Rashtriya

Shramik Aghadi or even to those permanent workmen who were not

members of any Union. Once Award dated 20 September 2006 is made

and once the same becomes enforceable, the bene�ts of settlement dated

30 September 2004 would become applicable to all the permanent

workmen of the Respondent-Union. This, however, does not mean that

provisions of Section 18(3) would expand the terms of the Settlement to

that class of employees which it never intended to cover. Thus, when

settlement is entered into to govern homogeneous class of employees,

Section 18(3) ensures that the bene�ts of settlement are extended to all

PAGE NO. 11 of 15

30 July 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 11681 of 2014

employees of such homogeneous class irrespective of whether they have

signed the settlement or not. However, Section 18(3) cannot be read to

mean that settlement would cover another class of employees (not

forming part of agreed homogeneous class). Following this principle, the

Settlement dated 30 September 2004 cannot apply to temporary workers /

trainees even upon making of Award dated 20 September 2006. The Award

cannot enlarge beyond the settlement on which it is founded [SEE: M/s.

Garment Cleaning Works v. D.M. Aney and Anr.

8

]

18) Petitioner's case is thus based on complete misreading of

provisions of Section 18(3) of the ID Act. The Industrial Court has

correctly appreciated this position and has held that passing of the Award

is of no consequence and that the bene�ts of Settlement dated 30

September 2004 cannot be stretched to temporary workers / trainees even

by having recourse to provisions of Section 18(3) of the ID Act.

19) What makes the case of the Petitioner-Union worse is the

fact that it consciously agreed for different arrangement for temporary

workers / trainees by executing Supplementary Settlement dated 9 April

2005. By the Supplementary Settlement, Petitioner-Union secured much

higher right of permanency to temporary workers and trainees. The

Petitioner itself accepted that temporary workers / trainees did not form

part of homogeneous class to be bene�ted by the Settlement dated 30

September 2004. It cannot now turn around and seek bene�t of Section

18(3) of the ID Act which seeks to extend the bene�t of settlement only to

non-signatories forming part of same homogeneous class. I therefore do

8 AIR 1970 Bom 209

PAGE NO. 12 of 15

30 July 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 11681 of 2014

not �nd any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment and order

passed by the Industrial Court.

20) A settlement under Section 18 of ID Act is a composite

instrument and must be read as a whole. That the parties cannot accept

the advantageous part and repudiate the burdensome ones. T he

Supplementary Settlement of 9 April 2005 was a negotiated package

granting permanency to certain employees on terms agreed and accepted

by the Petitioner. It cannot now disown the wage structure accepted under

that settlement and claim bene�ts under an Award founded on a different

settlement. Reliance by Mr. Joshi on the judgment of this Court in

Electropneumatics & Hydraulics (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bharatiya Kamgar

Karmachari Mahasangh and Anr.

9

is apposite. It would be inequitable to

permit the Petitioner to rely on the Award while without the

consideration of settlement of 2005 and that the Petitioner cannot use

the Award as a backdoor to nullify the 2005 settlement it negotiated. Mr.

Joshi has rightly relied on judgment of this Court in Bharatiya Kamgar

Sena vs. Consolidated Pneumatic Tool Company (I) Ltd. & Ors.

10

21) It appears that the Industrial Court held the Complaint to be

barred by limitation. However, the Award dated 20 September 2006

became enforceable on 3 January 2007. It was Petitioner's case before the

Industrial Court that the Settlement dated 30 September 2004 became

applicable to temporary workers / trainees by virtue of Award dated 20

September 2006 and therefore the complaint was actually not barred by

limitation. To only this limited extent, the Industrial Court appears to

9 2008 II CLR 295

10 1990 I CLR 380

PAGE NO. 13 of 15

30 July 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 11681 of 2014

have erred partially. However, bene�t of such partial error committed by

the Industrial Court does not enure to the bene�t of the Petitioner-Union

for the reasons discussed above.

22) Mr.Nerlekar has relied on judgment of the Apex Court in

Devinder Singh (supra) and Punjab National Bank vs. Manjeet Singh

(supra) in support of his contention that there cannot be any distinction

between categories of workmen and that the bene�t of the Settlement

dated 30 September 2004 must be extended to all workmen, whether

permanent, temporary or trainees. In my view however, Section 18(3) of

the ID Act is not aimed at covering a particular class of workers who were

not intended to be covered by the settlement. The provision is aimed at

applying the settlement to non-signatories. To illustrate, if a settlement is

entered into in respect of clerical staff and only one union representing

50% of clerical staff signs the settlement, upon making of an award, the

bene�ts of settlement would be available to the balance 50% clerical staff

as well. However, Section 18(3) of the ID Act cannot be misread to

interpret that the bene�t given to clerical staff would get extended to

technical staff to whom settlement never applied in the �rst place.

Similarly, reliance by Mr. Nerlekar on judgment of the Apex Court in

National Engineering (supra) is misplaced. The issue before the Apex

Court was about extension of bene�t of settlement to a minority union

and therefore the judgment has no application to the facts and

circumstances of the present case. In judgment of the Apex Court in P.

Virudhachalam (supra) also, the issue was about covering the entire body

of workmen by the settlement including those who were members of non-

signatory union. Similar is the position in respect of the judgment in

PAGE NO. 14 of 15

30 July 2026

Neeta Sawant WP 11681 of 2014

Barauni Re�nery Pragatisheel Shramik Parishad (supra) and New India

Motors (P) Ltd. (supra).

23) The conspectus of the above discussion is that the Industrial

Court has rightly dismissed Complaint (ULP) No. 12 of 2007 and no

interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and order of the

Industrial Court.

24) So far as challenge to orders dated 9 October 2013 is

concerned, the same relates to �ling of two Applications by the

Petitioner-Union after the complaint was remanded. The Application at

Exh.U-20 was for seeking corrections in regard to depositions of

witnesses. The application has rightly been rejected. The Application at

Exh.U-22 was �led after closure of evidence and after �xing of the

complaint for �nal arguments seeking issuance of summons to advocate.

The Industrial Court has described the application to be more in the

nature of list of witness and not an application for issuance of witness

summons. The Application is rightly rejected by the Industrial Court. in

any case, since there is no merits in the Complaint, it is not necessary to

delve deeper into the issue of orders passed on interlocutory applications.

25) In my view therefore, no interference is warranted in the

impugned orders passed by the Industrial Court. The Writ Petition is

devoid of merits. It is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. There

shall be no order as to costs.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE , J.]

PAGE NO. 15 of 15

30 July 2026

NEETA

SHAILESH

SAWANT

Digitally

signed by

NEETA

SHAILESH

SAWANT

Date:

2026.07.30

17:31:01

+0530