No Tags Found!

abhinav.a
Hello! I'm here to ask quite a few doubts
- Is there any time frame for 18(1) or 12(3) settlement? Is there any min. years that the settlement should be signed for?
- What would be the necessity for a tri party settlement
- Can a disciplinary action/proceeding be executed for a workmen when they are covered under a 18(1) settlement, and the company follows only the model standing orders?

From India, Chidambaram
Madhu.T.K
4193

Unless otherwise provided for in the settlement a settlement will be in force for six months.
A disciplinary action need not be clubbed to settlement. If an employee covered under the settlement is found involved in any act of misconduct you can initiate action against him. There cannot be any provision in the settlement which says that the persons on whom the settlement is binding can do anything which is illegal and against the company rules and decorum. You need not link it to standing orders also.
Model Standing Orders is only a model which can be adapted for the time being once the company has become covered under the Standing Order Act. Normally once covered, you are expected to have a certified standing order of your own within 6 months and till then you can use the Model Standing Order.
Madhu.T.K

From India, Kannur
abhinav.a
Thank you, Madhu sir!
we have signed a 18(1) settlement with our workmen and it's been one year. As agreed every year the base 2001 vda points average are computed and added to their basic, inclusive of their grade pay! Now the trade union leader raises a dispute saying that the vda increase is very low, and he didn't understand the settlement. He demands the settlement to be in regional language and requires labour officer also to sign the settlement. He s asking why didn't we sign A tri party settlement ?
Your inputs/ suggestions pl
Thanks/ abhinav

From India, Chidambaram
Madhu.T.K
4193

Tri partie settlement is required only when no settlement is arrived at between the employer and the employees and when a conciliation of a third party is required. A settlement already signed cannot be questioned by him. Once the term of the settlement is over, he can send a demand notice and ask for settlement. At that time, you can think of involving conciliation officer and go for a 12(3) settlement.
Madhu.T.K

From India, Kannur
9871103011
455

Dear Abinav,
To start with let me make you clear that settlement under 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a tripartite settlement, which is signed by the parties in presence of a Conciliation Officer. On the other hand, a settlement under 18(1) of the Act is signed by the parties otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding. These settlements shall be binding on the parties for the period as agreed upon and if no such period is agreed upon, it shall be binding for a period of six months from the date it is signed. It shall be continue to be binding till one of the parties, representing majority of the workmen, gives a notice in writing of its intention to terminate the settlement.
A tripartite settlement signed during the conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the (i) parties to the dispute (ii) parties summoned during the proceedings (iii) an employer, his heir, successor or assignee and (iv) all the present employees or who are subsqently employed.

There is no link between to settlement and disciplinary action against union official or a workman. Disciplinary actions against workmen are normally dealt under certified
standing orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,1946 if Act is applicable to the establishment and same has been certified by the Certifying Officer. Till the time the standing orders are certified, the model standing orders as envisaged under the Act shall apply to the establishment.

BS Kalsi
Member since August,2011

From India, Mumbai
9871103011
455

Dear Abhinav,
My reply to your subsequent query is as under:-

Please check as to whether the Union leader, who have raised the dispute represents the majority of the workmen. Intra- Union rivalry is normal in an organization. If one union signed the settlement, the minority union will always raised some issues to get the popularity or attention of the workers. If the earliar settlement had some clause relating to VDA and same is resolved and being followed. It is perfectly in order and cannot be agitated upon. If such leader thinks that VDA increase is low, he can certainly raise a fresh dispute before the concerned Conciliation Officer and request him to concliate upon.Once the issue is resolved, he can certainly request the officer to sign the settlement in regional language.As far his query as to why settlement was signed under Section 18(1) instead of Section 12 (3) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,can only be explained best by the parties involved in resolving the issues.

BS Kalsi
Member since August, 2011

From India, Mumbai
abhinav.a
Thank you for the inputs, sir
So the trade union leader can send a notice and the settlement can be converted into 12(3) with the presence of the labour officer, the existing 18(1) can be translated into regional language without any changes Or will the labour officer initiate changes when insisted by the union leader during the conversion of 18(1) into 12(3) ? Can changes/ entitlements/ benefits be entertained durin the conversion progress?

From India, Chidambaram
Madhu.T.K
4193

Sorry for the interruption. With the permission of BS Kalsi, let me say that a settlement u/s 18(1) is also a binding and enforceable settlement. As such if the Union sends it to labour Officer for making it a settlement u/s 12(3), the management can oppose it. Moreover, the Labour Officer cannot simply make a bi partie settlement a settlement under 12(3) without a conciliation and hearing the parties to the settlement.

A settlement under section 18(1) is binding on the parties to the settlement whereas a settlement under section 12(3) is binding not only on those who have signed the settlement but also on workers who may join the company later on. Settlement u/s 12(3) has wider coverage whereas the former will be binding only on those who have signed the agreement. Therefore, the management may not be interested to make it a 12(3) settlement under normal circumstances and in no way the management should make or convert a settlement already made under 18(1) into 12(3). If the Union leader has just now got enlightened of the VDA factor, let him wait till the present agreement is over.

Madhu.T.K

From India, Kannur
abhinav.a
Thank you sir. So while a bi party settlement is in effect, until the settlement period falls due the union cannot raise a dispute in the terms of the settlement, right? And if at all they want to, it shall be carried out in the form of 12(3) after the period of the existing settlement falls due.
From India, Chidambaram
9871103011
455

Dear Madhuji,
I appreciate your expert comments on my thread. I fully agree with you on your contentions. Normally an employer doesn't like involvement of third party in local issues disputes as such prefers settlement under 18(1) of ID Act,1947.
BS Kalsi
Member since August,2011

From India, Mumbai
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.






Contact Us Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service

All rights reserved @ 2024 CiteHR ®

All Copyright And Trademarks in Posts Held By Respective Owners.