+

Supreme Court: Settlement Between Employee Union And Employer Would Not Override Model Standing Orders Unless It Is More Beneficial To Employee

The Supreme Court in the case Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh vs Jet Airways Ltd observed that any settlement which being between employee Union and the Employer would not override the Model Standing Order, unless the same being more beneficial to the employees. The bench comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol in […]

Supreme Court
Supreme Court

The Supreme Court in the case Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh vs Jet Airways Ltd observed that any settlement which being between employee Union and the Employer would not override the Model Standing Order, unless the same being more beneficial to the employees.
The bench comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol in the case observed and has stated that the employer and the workman cannot enter into a contract overriding the statutory contract embodied in the certified Standing Orders.
In the present case, it has been confirmed by the High Court of Bombay that the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, CGIT wherein it rejected the demand of the Union for reinstatement with full back wages. In appeal filed before the Apex Court, the issues raised were:
(1) Which is the Appropriate Authority empowered to issue the Standing Order(s) under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946?
(2) Whether private agreement or the settlement between the parties would override the Standing Order?
The court in the case observed and has found that the Bombay Model Standing Order would be applicable to the parties.
The bench in the case observed and has directed that the High Court had held that the Model Standing Order is not a statutory provision but, at best, a statutorily imposed condition of service that a settlement or award can alter. Referring to the relevant Clauses of the Bombay Model Standing Order.
The court observed that the cumulative reading of aforesaid clauses reveals that a workman who has worked for 240 days in an establishment would be entitled to be made, and no contract or the settlement which abridges such a right can be agreed upon, let alone be binding.
The said Act being the beneficial legislation provides that any agreement or contract or settlement wherein the rights of the employees are waived off would not override the Standing Orders.
Accordingly, the bench allowed the appeal and has set aside the judgement and the award of the High Court judgement.

Tags: