{"id":223621,"date":"2006-10-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-10-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-ms-hindustan-fasteners-vs-nashik-workers-union-on-19-october-2006"},"modified":"2018-04-16T13:41:30","modified_gmt":"2018-04-16T08:11:30","slug":"m-d-ms-hindustan-fasteners-vs-nashik-workers-union-on-19-october-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-ms-hindustan-fasteners-vs-nashik-workers-union-on-19-october-2006","title":{"rendered":"M.D., M\/S. Hindustan Fasteners … vs Nashik Workers Union on 19 October, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M.D., M\/S. Hindustan Fasteners … vs Nashik Workers Union on 19 October, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Dalveer Bhandari<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  4553 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nM.D., M\/s. Hindustan Fasteners Pvt. Ltd\n\nRESPONDENT:\nNashik Workers Union\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/10\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha & Dalveer Bhandari\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\n[Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 24626 of 2004]<\/p>\n
S.B. SINHA, J :\n<\/p>\n
 \tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
 \tInterpretation of a settlement arrived at by and between the parties
\nhereto falls for consideration in this appeal which arises out of a judgment
\nand order dated 8.12.2000 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
\nBombay in First Appeal No. 521 of 1992.\n<\/p>\n
 \tAppellant herein is engaged in engineering activities.  Respondent No.
\n1 is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act.  Appellant was a
\nsick unit as envisaged under the Sick Industrial Company (Special
\nProvision) Act, 1985.  A settlement was arrived at on 11.5.1990 by and
\nbetween the parties hereto in regard to the demands raised on behalf of the
\nworkmen.  The period covered by the settlement was 1.01.1989 to
\n30.12.1992.  The workmen thereafter went on strike.  Several demands were
\nalso raised.  A second settlement was arrived on 24.5.1993.  In the preamble
\nof the said settlement, it was stated:\n<\/p>\n
“The company has enforced lockout of its
\nemployees on and from 14.1.93 for the reasons
\nmentioned in the company’s lock out notice dated
\n28.12.90 and the said lockout is still continuing.  In
\nview of the long duration of the lockout and
\nprotracted court proceedings in the Industrial
\nCourt, Nashik and elsewhere the parties to the
\nsettlement felt a need to find out long term solution
\nto the problems faced by them.  The parties also
\nsought the assistance of the Deputy Commissioner
\nof Labour, Nashik and in view of the discussions
\nbetween the parties the acceptable solution have
\nbeen found by them and they have settled the
\nentire disputes between them over the clauses of
\nthe lock-out i.e. still continuing and the Charter of
\nDemands of the Union served on behalf of the
\nworkmen”\n<\/p>\n
 \tClause 20 of the said settlement reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“That this settlement is in package deal viz-a-viz
\nfull demands raised by the Union under its charter
\nof demands dated 1st January, 1993 and as well as
\nelsewhere.  It is expressly understood that this
\nsettlement is in full and final settlement of all the
\nsaid demands and settles all demands of the Union\/
\nWorkmen made till date of whatsoever nature.
\nSuch as of the demands as set out in the charter of
\ndemands and elsewhere, referred to hereinabove
\nbut not specifically dealt within this settlement are
\nhereby treated as having been withdrawn and\/ or
\nnot pressed by the Union and the workmen and
\nsettled the same accordingly.  It is further agreed
\nthat during the currency of this settlement, the
\nUnion and the workmen shall not raise any fresh
\ndemand whatsoever, whether covered by this
\nsettlement or otherwise and whether involving
\nfinancial burden or not.  No other demands of
\nwhatsoever nature shall be made by the Union or
\nthe workmen either directly or indirectly.  Any
\ndemand made shall have the effect of nullifying
\nthis settlement.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tParagraphs 11, 12 and 13 of Clause 23 and Clauses 27 and 28 of the
\nsaid settlement read as under:\n<\/p>\n
“11.\tThe settlement shall encompass this
\nsettlement as well previous settlement dated
\n11.5.90 and shall constitute a whole contract
\nbetween the parties.  These settlements have
\nrendered substantial benefits on the workmen and
\nin view of the same, it is agreed between the
\npartiers that there will be no work stoppage\/ go
\nslow during the pendency of this settlement.  Any
\nbreach of this settlement shall render the above
\nmentioned settlements as null and void.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tThe parties expressly agree that the
\ndefinition of “wages” in various statutes in the
\nindustrial field will be followed by them for the
\npurpose of their application, enforcement and
\nimplementation in any event.  Payments under the
\nterms of their settlement agreed to be made and
\naccepted by the parties will not be affected and no
\nfurther and additional claims will be made or
\ncanvassed by the workmen under these laws for
\nincrease in benefits and if made shall deem as
\ncovered and adjusted by this settlement or under
\nthe terms of this settlement.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tExcept to the extent expressly modified in
\nthis settlement, all other existing rights, and
\nobligations and conditions of previous settlements
\nshall continue with full force and effect during the
\noperation of this settlement.\n<\/p>\n
Clause No. 27: Bonus<\/p>\n
 \tBonus for the year 1990-91, 1991-92 will be
\n8.33%.  No bonus is due and payable for the year
\n1992-93 and as the workmen did not work during
\nthis period.  Bonus for the year 1993-94 will be
\n9%.  Bonus for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96 will
\nbe 10% and for the year 1997-98 will be 12%.\n<\/p>\n
Further, it is provided that the management on its
\nown shall review the balance sheet and decide
\nabout the quantum of bonus payable to the
\nworkmen and in the event of any upward revision
\nis necessitated under the provisions of Payment of
\nBonus Act, 1965 excess amount minus agreed
\nbonus shall be paid to the employee.  In any
\ncircumstances the workmen will not raise any
\ndispute about the quantum of bonus.  The
\nmanagement decision shall be final.  In case the
\ncompany balance sheet shows accumulated losses
\nin the above years, the amount paid in excess of
\nstatutory min. will be by the way of ex-gratia for
\nthe purpose of industrial peace, productivity and
\nshop floor discipline.  Bonus for the year 1990-91
\nwill be paid in August and for the year 1991-92
\nwill be paid in October, 1993.\n<\/p>\n
Clause No. 28<\/span><\/p>\n
 \tThat the various clauses of the agreement\/
\nsettlement form one package agreement\/
\nsettlement and none of the clauses in this
\nagreement\/ settlement in separable from the
\nremaining clauses of the agreement\/ settlement.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tHowever, an industrial dispute was raised in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
“Whether the lock out effected by the management
\nw.e.f. 14.1.1992 is justified?  If not, what relief the
\nworkers are entitled for?\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe said industrial dispute was referred to for adjudication by the
\nappropriate government before the Industrial Court, Nashik.  Appellant
\nherein in its written statement inter alia raised the question as regards
\nmaintainability of the said reference relying on or on the basis of the said
\nsettlement dated 24.5.1993 stating:\n<\/p>\n
“2.\tThe reference is not tenable and
\nmaintainable as there was no dispute in existence
\nafter the settlement dated 24.5.1993 arrived
\nbetween Nashik Workers Union and the Company,
\nHindustan Fasteners Pvt. Ltd., hence the reference
\nis immature in the eyes of law\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe reference is also not maintainable in
\nview of the settlement dated 24.5.1993 as per the
\nClause No. 20 of the said settlement.  It was full
\nand final settlement and all the demands were
\nsettled.  It was also made clear that all other
\ndemands and claims were relinquished by the
\nworkmen and the Union and as such the reference
\nis to be rejected”\n<\/p>\n
It was further stated:\n<\/p>\n
“39.  The Employer Company welcome any
\ninvestigation that the Hon’ble Tribunal may
\nundertake, since it would definitely conclude that
\nthe lockout was justified and its prolongation was
\ndue to the illegal tactics of the Nashik Workers
\nUnion.”\n<\/p>\n
\tA dispute, thus, existed between the parties as regards applicability of
\nthe said settlement to the reference..\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe Tribunal made an award in the said reference on 19.1.2001
\nstating:\n<\/p>\n
“19. I have gone through the said settlement but
\nthe said settlement nowhere makes any reference
\nregarding the wages to be paid to the workers for
\nlock out period.  But the said settlement is
\nregarding other demands.  If the issue regarding
\nthe payment of lock out period would have been
\ndiscussed between the parties then, certainly the
\nsaid issue could have been mentioned in the
\nsettlement.  It is further the contention of the
\ncompany that in view of the Clause 20 of the
\nsettlement all the demands between the parties
\nwere settled”\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe Tribunal in its award further stated:\n<\/p>\n
“20. After perusal of the Clause 20 referred above
\nit makes clear the demand should be raised which
\nwill directly involve financial burden on the
\ncompany, but it is permanent to note here that no
\nsuch demand is raised by the Union, on the
\ncontrary, the present reference is referred by the
\nGovernment in view of P.A.M.S. proceeding
\npending before the Dy. Commissioner of Labour
\nprior to signing the said settlement.  The company
\nas well as the Second Party workers both were
\naware about P.A.M.S. proceedings pending before
\nthe Dy. Commissioner of Labour regarding the
\nlock out.  Therefore, they ought to have been
\nmentioned the same in the present settlement so as
\nto resolve the dispute.  But, as the said issue is not
\ntaken into the present settlement referred above by
\nstretch of imagination could not be said that the
\nsaid issue was settled finally in view of settlement
\ndated 24.5.1993 signed between the parties.
\nTherefore, the contention of First Party Company
\nthat present reference is not maintainable could not
\nbe accepted.  Hence, I answer the issue in the
\nnegative.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt was further found that although Appellant sought to justify the lock-
\nout declared by it but in support of the said plea, no witness was examined
\non its behalf.  In the aforementioned premise, by reason of the said award,
\nthe Industrial Tribunal directed:\n<\/p>\n
“2.\tThe lock out declared by the Company
\nw.e.f. 14.1.1992 is unjustified.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe workers are entitled for the wages for
\nlock out for period from 14.1.1992 to 2.6.1993.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe First Party Company is directed to pay
\nthe wages to the concerned workers in the period
\nof 14.1.1992 to 2.6.1993 within two months from
\nthe date of the publication of the Award.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tA writ petition was filed thereagainst.  A learned Single Judge of the
\nHigh Court in its judgment dated 23.04.2002 noticed the contentions of
\nAppellant herein that when the settlement was arrived at, reference had
\nalready been made by the appropriate authority.  However, it was opined
\nthat the said settlement did not contain any provision as to whether the
\nworkmen had given up their rights of wages during the period the factory
\nwas under lock-out.  The writ petition was dismissed.  An intra-court appeal
\nfiled thereagainst by Appellant was also dismissed by reason of the
\nimpugned judgment stating that under the aforementioned settlement the
\nworkmen had not given up their rights of wages.\n<\/p>\n
 \tMr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
\nAppellant, raised a short contention in support of this appeal.  It was urged
\nthat the settlement was to be read in its entirety.  So read, the learned counsel
\nwould contend, it would be apparent that all disputes and differences
\nbetween the parties and all demands raised by reason of the Charter of
\nDemands dated 1.01.1993 and all other demands having been resolved, the
\nquestion of directing payment of any wages during the period for which the
\nfactory was under lock-out did not and could not arise.\n<\/p>\n
 \tMr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
\nRespondent, on the other hand, would submit that the Charter of Demands
\nwas in relation to the specific issues as, for example, bonus, festival
\nallowance, pay scale, etc.<\/p>\n
 \tThe purport and object of a settlement arrived at by and between the
\nmanagement and the workmen is undisputedly required to be construed
\nkeeping in view its salutary effect.  It is aimed at maintenance of industrial
\npeace and harmony.  A settlement, therefore, although is required to be read
\nfor upholding the validity thereof like any other agreement, it should be read
\nin its entirety so as to ascertain the intention of the parties behind the same.
\nIt is true that in the said settlement, not only the Charter of Demands served
\non the management on or about 1.01.1993 was referred to, but the exchange
\nof letters between the parties had also been referred to, but the intention of
\nthe parties is to be gathered having regard to the circumstances attending
\nthereto.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThere had been a lock-out and a protracted court proceeding.  A long
\nterm solution was to be found out.  The settlement was in relation to the
\npurported causes of the lock-out.  It was still continuing.  A Charter of
\nDemands of the Union was served on behalf of the workmen.  It did not
\nrelate to wages of the workmen during the period of lock-out.  Clause 20 of
\nthe said settlement must, therefore, be read keeping in view the
\naforementioned backdrop of events.  But, before we embark upon the said
\nquestion, we may notice the Charter of Demands dated 1.01.1993.  The
\ndemands of workmen referred to pay scale, classification, dearness
\nallowance, leave, various allowances including travelling allowance,
\nwashing allowance and various other allowances as specified therein e.g.,
\nuniform, festival advance, etc.<\/p>\n
 \tCorrespondences entered into by and between the parties were in
\nrelation to the aforementioned demands.  It did not speak of the claim of
\nwages, although when the settlement was arrived at, the industrial dispute
\nwas pending.\n<\/p>\n
 \tHad, thus, the intention of the parties been to settle their disputes also
\nin relation to legality or otherwise of the lock-out declared by the
\nmanagement, it was expected to have been stated so explicitly therein.  It
\nwas also expected that the parties would file the said settlement before the
\nIndustrial Tribunal so that an award could be passed in terms thereof.
\nClause 20 of the said settlement provides for a package deal vis-a-vis all the
\ndemands raised by the Union.  The package deal was in relation to the
\nCharter of Demands dated 1.01.1993 and any other document including the
\nletters exchanged between the parties pursuant thereto or in furtherance
\nthereof.  The subject matter of settlement was ‘all demands of whatever
\nnature’ in terms whereof the workmen might not have been able to make any
\nother demand, but, on a bare perusal of the said settlement, it is apparent that
\nthe expression which has repeatedly been used was the ‘Charter of
\nDemands’.\n<\/p>\n
 \tWhile keeping the industrial dispute pending, Respondents had not
\nraised any fresh demand.\n<\/p>\n
 \tClause 21 refers to the previous settlement also.  The rights of the
\nworkmen under the existing settlement were not adversely affected.  If they
\nhave worked, they would be entitled to wages.  If they have reported for
\nduties during the period of lock-out which was illegal, they were entitled to
\nthe wages for the said period.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn furtherance of the said Charter of Demands, the parties entered into
\nseveral other correspondences.  In terms of the settlement, the parties settled
\ntheir disputes in relation to the demands raised.  The wages to be paid to the
\nworkmen which they had claimed as of right was not and could not have
\nbeen the subject matter of any payment or settlement.  Whereas the concept
\nof a demand must be held to be relating to a right higher than the existing
\nright, the workmen were entitled to raise a claim in relation to their existing
\nright and in that view of the matter financial implication therefor cannot be a
\nground for refusal thereof.  If a claim is to be withdrawn by reason of a
\nsettlement, the same must find a specific mention therein.\n<\/p>\n
 \tSubject, of course, to the parties acting on the settlement, the
\nworkmen had promised that they would not go for ‘work stoppage’ or ‘go
\nslow’ but then in terms of Paragraph 12 of Clause 23 of the said settlement,
\nit had categorically been reiterated that the expression “wages” shall be
\ngiven the same meaning as obtaining in the statute.  The right to enforce the
\nclaim for wages both in the first settlement as also the second settlement
\nwas, therefore, not given up.  It was further stated that no additional claims
\nwould be made for increase of benefits.  Paragraph 13 of Clause 23 of the
\nsaid settlement also refers to existing rights and obligations subject, of
\ncourse, to the modification made therein.  By reason of the said settlement,
\nthe workmen surrendered their rights of bonus.  We have noticed
\nhereinbefore that the management, although questioned the legality and\/ or
\nvalidity of the reference, but at the same time also welcomed the same
\nstating that thereby they had got an opportunity to establish that the lock-out
\ndeclared by them was not illegal.  But, then no witness was examined to
\nprove the said fact.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe parties, therefore, made it clear that the claim of wages raised on
\nbehalf of the workmen on the premise that the lock-out was illegal was not
\nthe subject matter of the settlement.  The Tribunal, in our opinion, is right in
\narriving at the finding that the intention of the parties must be gathered from
\nthe attending circumstances; one of them being that although the parties
\nwere aware that the industrial dispute was pending but no reference thereto
\nwas made in the settlement.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt is difficult to accept the contention of Mr. Naphade that in the facts
\nand circumstances of this case, provisions of Section 92 of the Evidence Act
\nwould have any role to play.  It is not the contention of Respondents that the
\nsettlement was not to be read as a full or final settlement between the parties
\nbut the same must be read as meaning that the settlement was only in respect
\nof the Charter of Demands and other demands made by the Union from time
\nto time in its various letters.\n<\/p>\n
 \tConstruction of a document so as to ascertain the intention of the
\nparties is in no way controlled by the provisions of Sections 91 or 92 of the
\nEvidence Act.  The document has to be interpreted applying the known
\nprinciples of construction and\/ or canons.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn fact, in the special leave petition, Appellant itself has contended:\n<\/p>\n
“(VI)\tThat because the Hon’ble High Court should
\nhave appreciated the fact that at the time of
\nreference the contesting parties were negotiating
\nthe Settlement.  So in view thereof it was the duty
\nof the Conciliation Officer under Section 12(2) and
\n12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act for bringing
\nabout a settlement of the dispute without delay and
\ninvestigate the dispute and all such matters
\naffecting the merits and the settlement thereof.
\nFurther, it is pertinent to state that the Conciliation
\nOfficer has enough powers to investigate the cause
\nof dispute and enforce a settlement.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tIf that was the stand of Appellant before the Conciliation Officer, they
\ncould have asked him to close the conciliation proceedings.  They did not do
\nso.\n<\/p>\n
 \tApplying the principles of interpretation of a document and having
\nregard to the circumstances attending thereto, we are of the opinion that the
\nfindings of the tribunal and the High Court cannot be faulted with.\n<\/p>\n
 \tFor the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in this
\nappeal which is dismissed accordingly with costs.   Counsel’s fees assessed
\nat Rs.10,000\/-.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M.D., M\/S. Hindustan Fasteners … vs Nashik Workers Union on 19 October, 2006 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Dalveer Bhandari CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4553 of 2006 PETITIONER: M.D., M\/s. Hindustan Fasteners Pvt. Ltd RESPONDENT: Nashik Workers Union DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/10\/2006 BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Dalveer Bhandari JUDGMENT: J […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-223621","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM.D., M\/S. Hindustan Fasteners ... vs Nashik Workers Union on 19 October, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-ms-hindustan-fasteners-vs-nashik-workers-union-on-19-october-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.D., M\/S. Hindustan Fasteners ... vs Nashik Workers Union on 19 October, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-ms-hindustan-fasteners-vs-nashik-workers-union-on-19-october-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-16T08:11:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-d-ms-hindustan-fasteners-vs-nashik-workers-union-on-19-october-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-d-ms-hindustan-fasteners-vs-nashik-workers-union-on-19-october-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.D., M\\\/S. Hindustan Fasteners … vs Nashik Workers Union on 19 October, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-16T08:11:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-d-ms-hindustan-fasteners-vs-nashik-workers-union-on-19-october-2006\"},\"wordCount\":3064,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-d-ms-hindustan-fasteners-vs-nashik-workers-union-on-19-october-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-d-ms-hindustan-fasteners-vs-nashik-workers-union-on-19-october-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-d-ms-hindustan-fasteners-vs-nashik-workers-union-on-19-october-2006\",\"name\":\"M.D., M\\\/S. Hindustan Fasteners ... vs Nashik Workers Union on 19 October, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-16T08:11:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-d-ms-hindustan-fasteners-vs-nashik-workers-union-on-19-october-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-d-ms-hindustan-fasteners-vs-nashik-workers-union-on-19-october-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-d-ms-hindustan-fasteners-vs-nashik-workers-union-on-19-october-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.D., M\\\/S. Hindustan Fasteners … vs Nashik Workers Union on 19 October, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M.D., M\/S. Hindustan Fasteners ... vs Nashik Workers Union on 19 October, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-ms-hindustan-fasteners-vs-nashik-workers-union-on-19-october-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.D., M\/S. Hindustan Fasteners ... vs Nashik Workers Union on 19 October, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-ms-hindustan-fasteners-vs-nashik-workers-union-on-19-october-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-16T08:11:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-ms-hindustan-fasteners-vs-nashik-workers-union-on-19-october-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-ms-hindustan-fasteners-vs-nashik-workers-union-on-19-october-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.D., M\/S. Hindustan Fasteners … vs Nashik Workers Union on 19 October, 2006","datePublished":"2006-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-16T08:11:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-ms-hindustan-fasteners-vs-nashik-workers-union-on-19-october-2006"},"wordCount":3064,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-ms-hindustan-fasteners-vs-nashik-workers-union-on-19-october-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-ms-hindustan-fasteners-vs-nashik-workers-union-on-19-october-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-ms-hindustan-fasteners-vs-nashik-workers-union-on-19-october-2006","name":"M.D., M\/S. Hindustan Fasteners ... vs Nashik Workers Union on 19 October, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-16T08:11:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-ms-hindustan-fasteners-vs-nashik-workers-union-on-19-october-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-ms-hindustan-fasteners-vs-nashik-workers-union-on-19-october-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-ms-hindustan-fasteners-vs-nashik-workers-union-on-19-october-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.D., M\/S. Hindustan Fasteners … vs Nashik Workers Union on 19 October, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223621","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=223621"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223621\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=223621"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=223621"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=223621"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}