Coming now to the last submission of Mr. Anturkar, it is clear
that the agreement between the sugar factory and the union did
acknowledge that considering the financial circumstances of the sugar factory, it was problematic for the factory to implement the agreement according permanent status to the complainants immediately; it provided for implementation by the management by written orders as soon as possible and, at any rate, before 24 November 2015. This does not comprehend a resolution on the part of the board of directors of the sugar factory for implementing the agreement. What the agreement envisages is a written order of the management for implementing the agreement. This written order admittedly was passed on 5 November 2015, that is to say, before the last date of implementation, i.e. 30 November 2015. Mr. Anturkar tried to show some other provisions of the agreement in support of his contention that the word ‘management’ used in clause-7 of the agreement comprehends the board of directors of the sugar factory and not its executive authority. An agreement made between two individuals or entities cannot be construed like a statute. The meaning to be accorded to individual terms and conditions of the agreement has to be from a common sense and business point of view. When the agreement requires a written order of the management of the factory for its implementation, the written order passed by the Managing Director could very well be subsumed within it. In any event, assessment of this issue by the industrial court cannot be termed as unreasonable or perverse on the basis of submissions advanced by Mr. Anbturkar.
{Para 11}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.10372 OF 2018
Shri Bhogawati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, Vs Shri Ananda Ishwara Kumbhar
