Dear Professionals,
Can someone please elaborate on Section 18(3) of the ID Act? How is the settlement made under this section different from that under 18(1) or 12(3)? What are the circumstances in which an 18(3) settlement could be made?
Thanks in advance for clarifications.
Regards,
Jeev.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
6Can someone please elaborate on Section 18(3) of the ID Act? How is the settlement made under this section different from that under 18(1) or 12(3)? What are the circumstances in which an 18(3) settlement could be made?
Thanks in advance for clarifications.
Regards,
Jeev.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Jeevan,
As per Section 18(1) of the ID Act, any settlement arrived at between the management and the union (bipartite) shall be binding only on the workers party to the settlement. In other words, it shall not be binding on members of the union other than the one which is a party to the settlement.
As per Section 18(3) of the Act, if the settlement between the two parties is certified by the conciliation office/ALC or LC, the same shall be binding on all workers whether they are members of the union which is a party to the agreement or not. This is typically a tripartite agreement.
Hope this is of some help.
Best wishes, Sunil Joshi PGCHRM - XLRI
From United States, Bedford
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
As per Section 18(1) of the ID Act, any settlement arrived at between the management and the union (bipartite) shall be binding only on the workers party to the settlement. In other words, it shall not be binding on members of the union other than the one which is a party to the settlement.
As per Section 18(3) of the Act, if the settlement between the two parties is certified by the conciliation office/ALC or LC, the same shall be binding on all workers whether they are members of the union which is a party to the agreement or not. This is typically a tripartite agreement.
Hope this is of some help.
Best wishes, Sunil Joshi PGCHRM - XLRI
From United States, Bedford
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Jeevaneyan,
Section 12 gives us the Duties of Conciliation Officer under the Act and describes his jurisdiction and limits regarding the duties. This has nothing to do with the process of Settlement but describes what the duties of Conciliation Officers should be to have a settlement valid under the Act.
For example: Let us take a criminal offense like Murder. It involves: 1) Police 2) Judiciary. Now IPC and CrPC describe the duties and responsibilities of Police and Judiciary in one part: The other part describes how the trial is to be conducted and what punishment to be meted out in case of conviction according to the gravity of the offense.
So, to compare the duties of the Judiciary and trial or the quantum of punishment is not proper.
On the other hand, Section 18 describes which sort of settlement arrived will be binding:
Subsection 1 says: A Bipartite Agreement is valid for the parties involved in the settlement.
Subsection 2 says: An Arbitration Award is binding on the parties who have referred the dispute for arbitration, subject to that it does not violate any provisions of subsection (3).
Section 18(3) explains that in case of any decision arrived either by the (1) Conciliation proceedings, (2) Notification issued by Appropriate Government u/s10A(3), (3) Labour Court, (4) Industrial Tribunal, will be binding on parties described in Section 18(a),(b),(c),(d).
Revert back for further queries.
Regards,
SC
From India, Thane
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Section 12 gives us the Duties of Conciliation Officer under the Act and describes his jurisdiction and limits regarding the duties. This has nothing to do with the process of Settlement but describes what the duties of Conciliation Officers should be to have a settlement valid under the Act.
For example: Let us take a criminal offense like Murder. It involves: 1) Police 2) Judiciary. Now IPC and CrPC describe the duties and responsibilities of Police and Judiciary in one part: The other part describes how the trial is to be conducted and what punishment to be meted out in case of conviction according to the gravity of the offense.
So, to compare the duties of the Judiciary and trial or the quantum of punishment is not proper.
On the other hand, Section 18 describes which sort of settlement arrived will be binding:
Subsection 1 says: A Bipartite Agreement is valid for the parties involved in the settlement.
Subsection 2 says: An Arbitration Award is binding on the parties who have referred the dispute for arbitration, subject to that it does not violate any provisions of subsection (3).
Section 18(3) explains that in case of any decision arrived either by the (1) Conciliation proceedings, (2) Notification issued by Appropriate Government u/s10A(3), (3) Labour Court, (4) Industrial Tribunal, will be binding on parties described in Section 18(a),(b),(c),(d).
Revert back for further queries.
Regards,
SC
From India, Thane
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Join Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.
Online proforma for raising industrial dispute under ID Act 18.7.2017.pdf