Conciliation proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act are pending until the report of the Conciliation Officer is received by the appropriate Government.

Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - SECTION 31(1) AND 33(1) - CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS - PENDENCY - MEANING - DISMISSAL OF WORKMAN DURING CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS - LEGALITY.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants, a bus service and its manager, were convicted under Section 31(1) read with Section 33(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act for dismissing a bus conductor during the pendency of conciliation proceedings. The Chief Presidency Magistrate had acquitted the appellants, holding that the conciliation proceedings had continued for more than 14 days and were therefore illegal. The High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellants.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the conciliation proceedings were still pending when the bus conductor was dismissed. The Court interpreted Section 20(2)(b) of the Act to mean that conciliation proceedings terminate when the report of the Conciliation Officer is received by the appropriate Government, not when the report is submitted by the Conciliation Officer.
Issues: Whether the conciliation proceedings were pending when the bus conductor was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the conciliation proceedings were pending because Section 20(2)(b) of the Act provides that conciliation proceedings terminate when the report of the Conciliation Officer is received by the appropriate Government, not when the report is submitted by the Conciliation Officer.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed and the conviction of the appellants was upheld.

Judgment

J. L. KAPUR J.: This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay reversing the judgment of the Chief Presidency Magistrate Bombay and thus convicting accused Nos. 1 and 5 under S. 31 (1) read with S. 33 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act) and sentencing accused No.1 to a fine of Rs. 250 and accused No.5 to a fine of Rs.50.

2. The appellants are the Andheri Marol Kurla Bus Service who was accused No.1 (now appellant No.1) and its Manager H.M. Khan who was accused No.5 (now appellant No.2) Some disputes arose between the appellant No.1 and its workment. On December 13,1951, the conciliation Officer wrote to the appellant No.1 and enclosed the demands of the Union which were dated August 9, 1951. On December 31, 1951, the appellant No.1 appeared before the Conciliation the Officer on January 9, 1952, and after getting one adjournment the appellant No.1 appeared before the Conciliation Officer on January 17, 1952, and filed its Written Statement and raised various objections. The next date of hearing was January 31, 1952, and the proceedings went on till June 2, 1952 when the appellant No.1 wrote to the Conciliation Officer saying that no useful purpose would be served by holding any further meetings. On May 9, 1952, the Union had also indicated to the Conciliation Officer that the negotiations had failed. On March 18, 1952 the appellant dismissed Louis Perira, a bus conductor and proceedings were taken on a complaint by Assistant Commissioner of Labour under Ss. 33 read with S. 31 of the Act against 5 accused persons the two appellants and the partners of appellant No. 1. The Chief Presidency Magistrate acquitted all the accused including the appellants and held that as the conciliation proceedings had continued for a period of more than 14 days as from January. 17, 1952, further proceedings for conciliation were illegal and therefore the accused persons could not be convicted under S. 31(1) of the Act. The State took an appeal to the High Court and the judgment of acquittal was reversed and of the accused persons the two appellants were convicted and the others were acquitted. The two appellants have appealed by special leave.

3. The question for decision is whether the conciliation proceedings could be said to be pending when Louis Pereira was dismissed. If the answer is in the affirmative then the appellants have been properly convicted and if not the conviction must be set aside. Section 31(1) makes the contravention of the provision of S. 33 of the Act an offence punishable with imprisonment for a period which may extend to six months or with fine or with both.

Section 33 (1) provides.:

"S.33 (1) During the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer or a Board or of any proceeding before a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, no employer shall-

(a) in regard to any matter connected with the dispute, alter to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the commencement of such proceedings; or

(b) for any misconduct connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, any workmen concerned in such dispute.

save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending."

Therefore the question reduces itself to the meaning of the words "pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer."

4. The argument raised on behalf of the appellant is that the object of conciliation is to get a settlement made with expedition and therefore under S. 12 the Conciliation Officer was bound to make his report within 14 days of the commencement of the conciliation proceedings or within such shorter period fixed by the appropriate Government. From this it was submitted that as 14 days had expired before March18, 1952, the dismissal could not be said to be one within th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document