Case name:

Hindustan Lever (PPF) Workers' Union Vs. State of Assam and Ors1.
Facts
The Petitioner is the union representative body of the employees of the Hindustan Unilever
Ltd., Respondent No. 4 as its members and registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926 ('the
Act, 1926'). The Respondent-company is engaged in the activity of manufacturing of various
types of consumer goods. On 21.12.2003 the Petitioner-union submitted a charter of demand
for revision of wages, dearness allowance and other conditions of service of the workmen and
following necessary deliberations an amicable settlement was arrived at on 24.04.2004
addressing most of the claims made vide the collective bargaining. On 7.7.2007, however,
when the workers reported for duty, they were denied entry in the working premises,
following which the Petitioner-union through its letter dated 9.7.2007 they pleaded Labour
Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer to solve the issue who issued a notice fixing 15.7.2007 for
conciliation. The management, however, on receipt of the notice declared a lockout of the
factory w.e.f. 15.7.2007 The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Tinsukia, having been again
approached by the Petitioner-union in this regard, he issued a notice on 16.7.2007, fixing
18.7.2007 for conciliation, which, however, was not attended to by the Management.
however the lock out was lifted vide negotiation with other registered trade union of the
organization.

Issues:
 Whether the conciliation made by other registered organization is considered to be
lawful
 Whether the lockout of the company justifiable

Reasoning:
Though both the unions proclaim to command the majority support, the exercise made by the
Assistant Labour Commissioner, Tinsukia limited though, cannot be per se denounced as
flippant and vacuous in absence of any impeachment to that effect by the Petitioner-union.
No better material has as well, been furnished in the present proceeding by it to construe such
a finding as overwhelmingly unreliable or untrustworthy. In this context, the report dated
6.8.2007 under Section 12(4) of the Act submitted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner-
cum Conciliation Officer, annexure 5 to the government referring to a letter dated 4.8.2007 of
1
Writ Petition Nos. 5086 of 2007 and 1069 of 2008
the Respondent No. 5 claiming its efforts to resurrect a congenial atmosphere for lifting the
lockout to arrive at a bipartite or tripartite settlement with the management is of considerable
significance.
Judgment:
Petitioners supposition that the parleys (meetings) between the management and the
Respondent No. 5-union were not preceded by any exercise whatsoever for ascertaining the
majority union or that the conciliation had remained inconclusive or had failed, is not borne
out by the records. They have not seriously disputed that almost all the workmen have,
pursuant to the settlements dated 2.9.2007 and 12.4.2008, as on date, availed the benefits
accruing there from and further, as claimed by the Respondents industrial peace reins with
the normalcy in the functional fronts restored. The wholesome sacrosanct and eventual
objective of the Act being to achieve industrial peace, in the factual scenario existing
currently, any step to reopen the issues settled, would ruffle the quietus as an evidently
regressive measure, neither warranted in law nor desirable or expedient. Petition dismissed
due to lack of merit
Case name:
Management Of Wipro Ltd V. Wipro Employees Association (AITUC)2
Facts:
The petitioner is a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956., it
had various business divisions On 28.03.2013, by de-merger, the consumer care and lighting,
infrastructure engineering and other non-IT business segments formed a separate entity
known as 'Wipro Enterprises (P) Limited. The current dispute is of Wipro Enterprises (P)
Limited with respect to the factory unit at Tumakuru which manufactures Santoor Bathing
Bar, Chandrika Ayurvedic Soap and Chandrika Amrutham.
The respondent-Union which is the sole collective bargaining union of the workmen
terminated the earlier settlement dated 31.12.2008, vide letter dated 21.03.2012 and placed
fresh demands dated 21.03.2012. The respondent-Union sought for increase in basic wages,
Dearness Allowance, service weightage, grade allowance, City Compensatory Allowance etc
negotiations happened between parties by the process of collective bargaining which failed so
the matter was referred to the industrial tribunal which granted decision against the
petitioners aggrieved by the same petitioners approached the current court

Issues:
2
Writ Petition No. 25594 of 201
  whether the Tribunal has properly considered the evidence on record, while coming to
a conclusion that the Management M/s. Wipro Enterprises (P) Limited earned profits
of over Rs.500 Crores
 Whether the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal in acceding to the demands raised by
the Union is just and proper or whether it requires interference at the hands of this
Court?'

Reasoning:
On going through the evidence on record, the Court opinioned that the Tribunal has not
appreciated the evidence on record in the right perspective it stated that The consequences of
the impugned award is an upward revision of more than 80-90% of the wages, which
according to the normal Industrial Standards is wholly unreasonable
the High Court would be entitled to interfere with the conclusions of an inferior Court or
Tribunal, if the Court/Tribunal ignores material piece of evidence from the purview of
consideration or the conclusion is based upon any error of law
judgment:
1. The writ petition is partly allowed.
2. The impugned award dated 28.03.2018, in I.D.No.60/2013, passed by the Industrial
Tribunal, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside.
3. The matter is referred back to the Tribunal