Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
20th March, 1963
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO AND K.C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.
1. Sirsilk Ltd. (In C. A. No. 220 of 62), 2. The Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. (In C. As. Nos. 423, 424 of 62), Appellants
Versus
Govt. of A.P. and another (In all the Appeals), Respondent.
Civil appeals Nos. 220; 423 and 424 of 1962.
Advocates appeared
M/s. S. K. Bose and B. P. Maheshwari, Advocates, for Appellant (In C. A. No. 220 of 62); Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Senior Advocate, (M/s. S. K. Bose, and Sardar Bahadur, Advocates, with him), for the Appellants (In C. As, Nos. 423 and 424 of 62); M/s K. R. Chaudhari and P. D. Menon, Advocates, for Respondent No. 1 (In all the Appeals).
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - S. 17(1), 18(1), 18(3), 2(p), 19(1) - PUBLICATION OF AWARD - SETTLEMENT - CONFLICT - AVOIDANCE - GOVERNMENT'S POWER.
Fact of the Case:
An industrial dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, which sent its award to the Government in September 1957. Before the Government could publish the award, the parties to the dispute reached a settlement on October 1, 1957, and requested the Government not to publish the award. The Government, however, expressed its inability to withhold the publication, considering S. 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to be mandatory.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that S. 17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is mandatory and the Government is bound to publish the award received by it from an industrial tribunal. However, in a situation where a binding settlement has been arrived at between the parties under S. 18(1) of the Act with respect to the very matters which were the subject-matter of adjudication under the award, the Government ought not to publish the award under S. 17(1) to avoid possible conflict between a binding settlement under S. 18(1) and a binding award under S. 18(3).
Issues: Whether S. 17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is mandatory or directory.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted S. 17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to be mandatory, considering the use of the word "shall" and the fact that sub-s. (2) of S. 17 provides that the award published under sub-s. (1) shall be final and shall not be called in question by any court in any manner whatsoever. However, the Court also recognized the binding nature of settlements arrived at between parties under S. 18(1) of the Act and the potential conflict that could arise between a binding settlement and a binding award. To reconcile these provisions, the Court held that in cases where a binding settlement has been reached, the Government should withhold the publication of the award to avoid such conflict.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeals and directed the Government not to publish the awards sent to it by the industrial tribunal in these cases in view of the binding nature of the settlements arrived at between the parties under S. 18(1) of the Act.
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
The publication of an award by the government under the relevant section of the Industrial Disputes Act is generally mandatory, as indicated by the use of the word "shall" in the statutory provision (!) .
The Act specifies that once an award is published, it becomes final and cannot be questioned by any court, emphasizing the binding nature of the award upon publication (!) .
When parties to an industrial dispute reach a binding settlement under the provisions of the Act, particularly under the section that makes such settlements binding, the government should refrain from publishing the award related to that dispute to prevent conflicts between the settlement and the award (!) .
The Act was amended to include provisions that recognize the binding nature of settlements arrived at outside of formal conciliation proceedings, which become effective once signed and communicated to the government (!) .
In cases where a binding settlement has been reached, especially after the award has been sent to the government but before its publication, the government is advised to withhold publication of the award to avoid undermining the settlement and to maintain industrial peace (!) .
The mandatory nature of the publication requirement does not override the necessity to respect binding settlements between parties, especially when such settlements are in force and cover the subject matter of the award (!) .
The government’s power to withhold publication in exceptional circumstances, such as when a settlement has superseded the award, does not conflict with the mandatory language of the statute but is a necessary reconciliation to prevent conflicts and promote industrial harmony (!) .
The approach to such situations involves considering whether the dispute has been effectively resolved by the settlement, rendering the publication of the award unnecessary or inappropriate (!) .
The legal framework emphasizes that settlements signed in accordance with prescribed procedures and communicated properly are binding and should be respected, reducing the need for further adjudication or publication of awards that would conflict with such settlements (!) .
In circumstances where disputes arise regarding the bona fide nature of a settlement, the government may refer the matter for adjudication, and if the settlement is found invalid, publication of the award can then be considered (!) .
These points highlight the balance between the statutory obligation to publish awards and the recognition of binding settlements to promote industrial peace and avoid conflicts.
Judgment
WANCHOO J. :These three appeals on certificates raise the same question and will be dealt with together. It will be enough to refer to the facts of one appeal only, i. e. No. 220, to understand the point arising for decision, the facts in the other appeals being similar.
2. Briefly the facts in appeal No. 220 are that an order referring certain disputes between the appellant and its workmen was made to the Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh on June 6, 1956. The tribunal sent its award to Government in September 1957. Under S. 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, No. XIV of 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the award has to be published by the appropriate government within a period of thirty days from the date of its receipt by the government in such manner as the government thinks fit. Before however the Government could publish the award under S. 17, the parties to the dispute which had been referred for adjudication came to a settlement and on October 1, 1957, a letter was written to Government signed jointly on behalf of the employer and the employees intimating that the dispute which had been pending before the tribunal had been settled and a request was made to Government not to publish the award. The Government however expressed its inability to withhold the publication of the award, the view taken by the Government being that S. 17 of the Act was mandatory and the Government was bound to publish the award. Thereupon the appellants filed writ petitions before the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying that the Government may be directed not to publish the award sent to it by the industrial tribunal. The High Court held that S. 17 was mandatory and it was not open to Government to withhold publication of an award sent to it by an industrial tribunal. Therefore it was not open to the High Court to direct the Government not to publish the award when the law enjoined upon it to publish it. The writ petitions were therefore dismissed. There were then applications for certificates which were granted and that is how the matter has come up before us.
3. The main contention on behalf of the appellants before us is that S. 17 of the Act when it provides for the publication of an award is directory and not mandatory. In the alternative, it is contended that even if S. 17 is mandatory some via media has to be found in view of the conflict that would arise between an award published under S. 17 (1) and a settlement which is binding under S. 18 (1) and therefore where there is a settlement which is binding under S. 18 (1), it would be open to the Government not to publish the award in these special circumstances.
4. We are of opinion that the first contention on behalf of the appellants, namely, that the publication of the award under S. 17 (1) is directory cannot be accepted. Section 17 (1) lays down that every award shall within period of thirty days from the date of its receipt by the appropriate government be published in such manner as the appropriate government thinks fit. The use of the word "shall" is a pointer to S. 17 (1) being mandatory, though undoubtedly in certain circumstances the word "shall" used in a statute may be equal to the word "may". In the present case, however it seems to us that when the word "shall" was used in S. 17 (1) the intention was to give a mandate to Government to publish the award within the time fixed therein. This is enforced by the fact that sub-s. (2) of S. 17 provides that "the award published under sub-s. (1) shall be final and shall not be called in question by any court in any manner whatsoever". Obviously when the legislature intended the award on publication to be final, it could not have intended that the Government concerned had the power to withhold publication of the award. Further S. 17. A. shows that whatever power the Government has in the matter of an award is specifically provided in that section, which allows the Government in certain circumstances t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
