Can the 18(1) settlement signed between the management & Union be converted into 12(3)?

Dear Professionals, Can the 18(1) settlement signed between the management & Union be converted into 12(3). If so, how? pls clarify.

Hope just sending the signed copies of 18(1) to the concerned Govt authorities does not mean it has been converted into 12(3).

In order to make a bilateral settlement tripartite or a settlement u/s 12(3), the signatories may need to appear before the Labour officer, RJLC, Commissioner, as the case may be, and sign the settlement again in his presence. For further inputs please wait for our Umakanthan Sir to respond.

Dear Madan,

A) What Mr.Madhu has said is correct.
Sending copies of the bilateral settlement u/s 18(1) of the IDA,1947 to the appropriate Government, Commissioner of Labor for the State or Centre as the case be and the Conciliation Officer for the area is mandatory.
Normally, it is the duty of the Conciliation Officer to register the settlement in the concerned register maintained at his office, if the settlement complies with the provisions of labor laws in force in all respects; if not he will refuse to register the settlement. But mere submission of the settlement copies will not automatically make the bilateral settlement into a tripartite one.
B)For conversion,
the signatories of both the sides have to officially request the C.O by means of a joint memo disclosing the names of other trade unions, if any in the industry who are not parties to the 18(1) settlement in case the terms are pertaining to common issues.
In such a case, the C.O will invite such non-signatory unions also to the conciliatory talks to be held for the purpose. If they accept the terms, they will also sign the tripartite settlement. Otherwise, the settlement would be signed according to the majority opinion and the fact would be placed on record in the body of the settlement. Eventually, it will bind all the workmen in the industry and would be in force till its expiry.
C) Similarly, the C.O can refuse to convert the settlement-
1) if the terms are against the provisions of any law and the parties refuse to modify them OR
2) if the signatories object to the inclusion of any non--signatory unions in the conciliatory process.
D) The effects of non-conversion are,
1) if the terms are pertaining to common working conditions to all, there is a possibility of scuttling the settlement by blocking its smooth implementation by those who are not signatories; in due course the realignment of workers may lead to reagitation of the same issues during its operation on the ground of changes in the material circumstances as the settlement covers only the people belonging to the signatory trade union.
2) Even in the case of F&F Settlement with individual workman on discharge, dismissal or retrenchment, there is the possibility of complaint later on the ground of coercion by the employer.
Thanks to Mr.Madhu for his invitation to join the discussion.
M.Umakanthan.

Thank you very much Sir for your valuable comments on he subject. One question. Supposing that the other union represents less than 15% of the workmen, then is it mandatory that they should also be called for conciliation to make the change the settlement from 18(1) to 12(3)?

Our experience at WB is different. If it is 18(1) agreement, it is not possible to covert it in 12(3). Labor directorate suggests to get it signed by all willing employees before implementation. Most of the organization are following the process that if the management and Union(s) agreed everything at bi-partite level( MOU), before signing MOS they are jointly approach to labor directorate and sign it in presence of the ALC/DLC/JT.LC etc. to make it as per 12(3).

In other cases where before the agreement if it has been reached to Labor Directorate and conclude with one MOS, then it is automatically under 12 (3).

S K Bandyopadhyay ( WB, Howrah)
CEO-USD HR Solutions
+91 98310 81531
[Login to view]
USD HR Solutions – To Strive towards excellence with effort and integrity