Collective Bargaining Collective bargaining being a system based on bipartite agreement is superior to any agreement involving third party

intervention in matters essentially concern employers and workers. Collective Bargaining Merits 1. Being a method of solving disputes between the parties is more democratic in form and application this is the only method which provides settlement without the compulsion from outside forces 2. Collective bargaining develops the spirit of self confidence and self reliance in the mind of employees. 3. In this method there is a give and take policy which will develop good will and understanding between labour and management it helps to create a peaceful atmosphere in the industrial relations 4. Another advantage is speedy solution to the dispute the parties can do it at their own time and discretion compared to the delay in compulsory adjudication the time lag in solving the dispute through collective bargaining is comparatively less. 5. It produces more harmonious relations between employers and workers. The Trade unions and the employers while making a collective bargaining must be careful that the agreement arrived at should be in conformity not only with the provisions of general law touching upon the subject of dispute but in conformity with the provisions of the industrial law while making an agreement with the employer it has to be borne in mind that the interest of the workers are not discriminated against. The International Labor Organization also in a conference held in 1951 recognized the principle of collective bargaining and adopted a resolution recommending collective agreements. In a land-mark judgement in the case of Herbertsons Ltd. v. WorkmenB the facts were that a dispute was referred for adjudication to the Tribunal which, after hearing, gave an award. The company appealed to the Supreme Court against the award by Special Leave. While the matter was pending before the SlJpreme Court in Appeal, the workmen changed their loyalties, and resigned,from the union which was party to the dispute, and joined another union. The Company granted recognition to the said union, to which the workmen had transferred their loyalty. A settlement was arrived at between this latter union and the management. Copies of this settlement were forwarded. to the. Government and the various other authorities so as to tnake it statutorily binding on the parties. It was common ground before the Court that this was settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and not under Section 18(3) of the Act, that is to say it was a settlement outside conctlation proceedings and binding only on the parties to the dispute. The company made an application to the court to pass jUdgement In terms of the settlement. The factual position that emerged was that one of the unions which had 193 members on Its rolls had entered into the settlement, while another union which claimed to have 55 mernberson its rolls, did not accept the

settlement. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Supreme Court framed an issue to find out Whether the settlement was fair and reasonable and ought to be accepted and remanded it to the Tribunal to return a finding on the issue. The Tribunal's finding was that the settlement was partly fair and partly Unfair. On this finding, it was urged that the Appeal should be decided on merits. But, the Supreme Court refused to do so, holding that when a recognised union negotiates with an. employer, workers as individuals do not come into the picture at all. The court further held that It is not necessary that such individual workers should know the implications of the settlement since the recogni~ed union, which is expected to protect the legitimate interests of labour, enters into a settlement in the best interest of labour. This should be the normal rule. It would, however,be different if the settlement is vitiated by mala fide and fraud or corruption or other inducements. As this was not so in the case under consideration, the court held that the settlement being in the course of collective bargaining, should be given due weight and consideration. The Supreme Court also emphasised that there may be several factors that may influence parties to come to a settlement. When such a settlement is reached, the Court should not test the settlement on the anvil of what the workmen would have got if the matter was decided on contest between the employer and workmen by third party adjudication. It observed that there is always delay and uncertainty in litigation. On the other hand, by a settlement through collective bargaining in good faith,workmen get immediate benefits. There is also the likelihood of further advance in the shape of improved emoluments by voluntary settlement, avoiding friction and unhealthy litigation. This, said the Court, is the qUintessence of settlement which courts and tribunals endeavour to encourage. It Is in that spirit that the settlement has to be judged,and not by this yardstick adopted in scrutinising a1' award in adjudication. It further held that It is not possible to scan the settlement in bits and pieces, and hold some parts good and acceptable and others bad. Unless It can be demonstrated that the objectionable portion is such that It completely outweighs all the other advantages gained therein,the Court will be slow to hold a settlement as Unfair and unjust. Recently the trend of Supreme Court judgements has been in favour of collective bargaining and settlements arrived bilaterally, and the court has not Insisted on formal compliance with Rules made under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to make such settlement binding. In Hindustan Lever v. Management of Hindustan Lever the Supreme Court gave sanctity to even a settlement arrived at by correspondence between the union and the management.