Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A. ALAGIRISWAMI AND R.S. SARKARIA, JJ.
The Jhagrakhan Collieries (P) Ltd. Appellant
Versus
G. C. Agrawal Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1968 of 1972, D/28-11-l974.
An analysis of the definition of 'settlement' would show that It contemplates only two kinds of settlements: (i) A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings under the Act and (ii) a written agreement between the employer and the workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceedings. But a written agreement of the latter kind in order to fall within the definition must satisfy two more conditions, namely: (a) it must have been signed by the parties thereto in the prescribed manner, and the, a copy thereof must have been sent to the authorities indicated in section 2 (p). [Para 11
An implied agreement by acquiescence, or conduct such as acceptance of a benefit under an agreement to which the worker acquiescing or accepting the benefit was not a party, being outside the purview of the Act, is not binding on such a worker either under sub-section (1) or under sub-section (3) of section 18, [Para 16
(2) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Ss.33-C and 10-A and 2 (p) - settlement not arrived at during conciliation proceedings-binds only the parties thereto-scope of the provisions.
Assuming that the Act does not inhibit the employers end the workmen from arriving at a settlement during the pendency of proceedings under section 33-C (3) of the Act, such a settlement not being one arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings would be enforceable only against the parties thereto. [Para 20,
Although the scope of section 33-C (2) is wider than that of section 33 C (1). cases which would appropriately be adjudicated under section 10 (1) are outside the purview of section 33-C (2). The provisions of section 33-C are, broadly speaking, in the nature of executing provisions. (1965) 2 LLJ 110 distinguished. (1968) 1 LLJ 6 referred to. [Para 22
(3) Appeal - nature of - power of the appellate Court.
An appeal being a rehearing of the case, the jurisdiction of the appellate Court is coextensive with the trial Court. [Para 23
Judgment
SARKARIA :- This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment, D/- 4-8-1971 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, whereby the appellant s Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was dismissed.
2. The appellant is the Jhagrakhan Collieries (P) Ltd., a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The Company owns three collieries in Jhagrakhan in Surguja District of Madhya Pradesh. These collieries employ over 4,200 workmen. At the relevant time there were three Trade Unions functioning at the collieries, namely, (1) Madhya Pradesh Koyla Mazdoor Panchayat (for short, the Panchayat ); (2) Azad Koyla Shramik Sabha (for short, the Sabha ); (3) Madhya Pradesh Colliery Workers Federation (for short the Federation ).
3. At the material time, the Panchayat according to the allegations of the Company, had about 75 per cent of the workers on its rolls. The Union conducted a complete strike for 57 days in the months of March and April 1968 at the collieries. The Central Wage Board for Coal Mining Industry by its award recommended payment Variable Dearness Allowance (for short, V. D. A.), correlated to the cost of living index prevailing from time to time. The Company accepted these recommendations. The workers represented by the various Unions; on the basis of the Wage Boards award demanded V. D. A. at the rate of Rs. 1.47 per day with effect from April 1, 1968 while the company was paying it at the rate of Rs. 1.11 per day. The company refused to pay more than Rs. 1.11 per day. Thereupon, in December 1968, the Federation, which had a membership of 169 workers (Respondents 4 to herein) made an application .before the Central Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal Jabalpur (for short, the Labour Court) under Section 38-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short the Act ) for determination of the amount of V.D.A. due to the workers. The Company submitted its written statement on May 13, 1969, challenging the jurisdiction of the court and raised other legal objections.
4. On October 4, 1969, the Panchayat served a notice of strike under Section 22 (1) of the Act on the Company together with a Charter of 29 demands and threatened to strike on or after November 7, 1969 if their demands were not conceded. Thereupon, the conciliation proceedings purporting to be under S. 22 read with S. 12 (1) of the Act were held by Mr. B. D. Sharma Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) Shahdol on the 21st and 22nd October 1969. In the course of those conciliation proceedings on October 22, 1969, besides other matters, the dispute relating to V.D.A. was settled. On October 22, 1969 the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Mr. Sharma) sent a report together with a copy of the settlement to the Government as required by S. 12 (3) of the Act. Subsequent to the signing of this conciliation agreement, dated October 22, 1969, the Company filed a supplement to statement on November 5, 1969, submitting that in view of the said settlement, the application under S.33-C (2) of the Act filed by the Federation, had become infructuous. The Labour Court by its orders dated December 20, 1969 framed this additional issue: "Whether the claim stands settled by reason of settlement dated 22-10-1969, if any ?".
5. On behalf of the workers several objections were raised to the enforce ability of this settlement. Their ultimate stand was that the settlement was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, in as much as it had not been brought about in proceedings before a duly approved Conciliation Officer. The Labour Court tried this issue as a preliminary issue. It held that Shri Sharma was not a duly appointed Conciliation Officer on the date on which the settlement was arrived at, and consequently, it did not put an end to the dispute pending before the Labour Court.
6. To impugn this order of the Labour Court, the Company through its agent and Mining Engineer filed a Writ Petition under Articles 266 and 227 of the Constitution, which
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
