SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1960 Supreme(SC) 241

Supreme Court Of India
State of Bihar
Versus
Kripa Shaikar Jaiswal
Decided On : October 14, 1960

The absence of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, does not affect the jurisdiction of the Conciliation Officer, and a delay in submitting a report under Section 12(6) does not invalidate the settlement arrived at during conciliation proceedings.

Headnote:

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 11(2), 12, 20(2), 29 - SETTLEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - NOTICE UNDER SECTION 11(2) - JURISDICTION OF CONCILIATION OFFICER - REPORT UNDER SECTION 12(6) - DELAY IN SUBMISSION - EFFECT - SETTLEMENT ARRIVED AT - LEGALITY - BREACH - PENAL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 29 - APPLICABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

A dispute arose between the workmen and management of Mankatha Distillery, leading to the registration of the Mankatha Distillery Mazdoor Panchayat as a union under the Indian Trade Unions Act. Following conciliation proceedings, a settlement was reached on March 18, 1954, agreeing to reinstate discharged workers and discharge newly employed workers. However, the terms of the settlement were not implemented, resulting in the prosecution of the respondent and the manager of the Distillery under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court set aside the conviction, holding that the settlement was not binding on the respondent as it was not arrived at between the proprietor and all the laborers and that the Conciliation Officer did not give reasonable notice before visiting the Distillery.

Issues: 1. Whether a recognized union is a prerequisite for an industrial dispute? 2. Whether the absence of a notice under Section 11(2) affects the jurisdiction of the Conciliation Officer? 3. Whether a delay in submitting a report under Section 12(6) invalidates the settlement arrived at during conciliation proceedings?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. A recognized union is not a prerequisite for an industrial dispute. A dispute becomes an industrial dispute even when sponsored by an unregistered union or by some of the workmen. 2. The absence of a notice under Section 11(2) does not affect the jurisdiction of the Conciliation Officer. The notice is only for the purpose of entering the premises to make an inquiry into an existing or apprehended industrial dispute. 3. A delay in submitting a report under Section 12(6) may be a breach of duty on the part of the conciliation officer, but it does not affect the legality of the proceedings or the settlement arrived at.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the order of the High Court acquitting the respondent was upheld.

Judgment

J. L. KAPUR, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal brought in pursuance of a certificate under Art. 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution against the judgment and order of acquittal of the High Court of Patna.

( 2 ) THERE were certain disputes between the workmen and Management of Mankatha Distillery of which the proprietor is the respondent. On 23/11/1953, a petition was submitted on behalf of the workmen of the Distillery to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bhagalpur, which was signed by on Banarsi Choudhuri on behalf of himself and for and on behalf of the workmen of the Distillery. In this petition, certain grievances of the workmen were set out. Conciliation proceedings were started, and there was an agreement of 5/12/1953, which the High Court has described as some sort of agreement.

( 3 ) ON 12/01/1954, an application was made for the registration of the Union of the workmen of the Distillery under the Indian Trade Unions Act, and the same was registered on 23/03/1954, under the name and style of Mankatha Distillery Mazdoor Panchayat. The Distillery was closed and the workmen were discharged, and thereafter on 19/02/1954, the General Secretary of the Mankatha Distillery Mazdoor Panchayat, even tough it was not registered at the time, sent a letter to the Management, protesting against the discharge of the workmen without payment of compensation and objection to the intention of the employers to re-start the factory after employing other workmen. It was also stated therein that the workers who had been discharged, had been working for some years and a list of such workmen was attached to the letter. The following portion of the letter is relevant for the purposes of this appeal :"all the persons, named below, shall work in the factory in legal manner, on monthly salary on permanent basis. It is not only hoped, rather fully believed that you would consider the above facts and gladly accept the same. ON getting a satisfactory reply, all the workers, who had been working in your factory since years, would report themselves to duty and work according to your orders". ALTHOUGH it is addressed to the proprietors of the Distillery, it seems to have been sent to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Bhagalpur, where it was received on 25/02/1954. The following endorsements were made on this letter :"discussed with out. The management is requested to attend conciliation proceeding on 10/03/1954, at 11 a. m. The Union is also informed accordingly". ANOTHER petition dated 5/03/1954, was sent by the General Secretary of the Distillery Mazdoor Panchayat to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, in which the names of all the persons who had been freshly employed by the proprietors, were mentioned and it was prayed that those who were discharged at the time of the closing of the factory, may be reinstated and wages paid, and a request was made to the Assistant Labour Commissioner to visit and see the situation for himself and get the workmen reinstated. The order on this petition was :"the parties have been called to-morrow in my office for conciliation. The result of the proceeding may be awaited. "on 18/03/1954, a settlement was arrived at between the management and the workers which is signed by the Conciliation Officer appointed under S. 4 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) (hereinafter termed, for the sake of brevity, the Act ). This document was signed by the proprietor and the manager of the Distillery and by Banarsi Choudhuri, General Secretary of he Workers Panchayat and also by six other members of the Panchayat who were evidently the members of the Executive Committee of the Panchayat. The terms of the settlement were as follows :"1. It is agreed that the workers named is Schedule "a" shall be taken to jobs without break in their services. 2. The new hands appointed after the closure of the factory shall be discharged. 3. If three shifts will start and any other increased opportunity of employment will be available in








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top