Back
1962 Supreme(SC) 459
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.E. Gajendragadkar, A.K. Sarkar and K.N. Wanchoo, JJ.
Aluminium Factory Workers' Union - Appellant
Versus
Indian Aluminium Co., Ltd., Alupuram - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1961
Decided On : 24-01-1962
For the Appellant :A.V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate (Sardar Bahadur, Advocate
For the Respondent:C.K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India (B.R.L. Iyengar and M.R. Krishna Pillai, Advocates
An award made in settlement of an industrial dispute is binding on the parties to the dispute and cannot be challenged in a subsequent reference unless it is terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 10(4) - REFERENCE OF DISPUTES - AWARD - SCOPE AND EFFECT - SUPERVISORS - WHETHER WORKMEN - SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES - EFFECT ON SUBSEQUENT REFERENCE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant union, representing the workmen of the respondent company, challenged the order of reference of certain industrial disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on the ground that the order was incompetent.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the order of reference was competent and that the award made in the earlier reference, which settled the dispute concerning the status of supervisors as workmen, was binding on the appellant union.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of reference of the industrial disputes was competent. 2. Whether the award made in the earlier reference, which settled the dispute concerning the status of supervisors as workmen, was binding on the appellant union.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the order of reference was competent because the dispute concerning the status of supervisors as workmen was incidental to the points of reference and was settled as part of the overall settlement of the disputes. 2. The court held that the award made in the earlier reference was binding on the appellant union because it was made in respect of disputes with workmen of the same employer and was part of the overall settlement of the disputes.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT :
Sarkar, J.
1. The appellant is a union of the workmen of the Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., the respondent in this appeal. The appeal concerns certain industrial disputes. The question raised is whether the order of reference of these disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was competent.
2. It appears that on 28-3-1951, the Government of the State of Travancore- Cochin which later became the State of Kerala, made under the Act two orders of reference of certain industrial disputes between the Company and its workmen. The first order of reference concerned disputes between the Company and its workmen represented by a union called the Factory Staff Association and the second concerned disputes between the Company and its workmen represented by the appellant Union. After various proceedings these disputes were settled and awards by the Industrial Tribunal concerned were made on 19-1-1952 in terms of settlements arrived at. In the case in which the Staff Association was concerned the dispute referred included two points, namely, (1) Was the refusal to promote Pot Room Supervisor Shir P.C. Markose as foreman unjust? and (2) Does the transfer of Shir M.P. Mathai and C.A. Augustine from the Pot Room Department to the Chemical Laboratory amount to alteration of the conditions of service to the prejudice of Pot Room Supervisors? The settlement with regard to the first of these disputes was in these terms:
"The principle that supervisors and other employees in the Company above their grade are not workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 is accepted and accordingly, the Indian Aluminium Factory Staff Association undertakes forthwith to exclude all such employees from their membership and inform the fact to the Employers in writing. On receipt of the same the Employers shall promote Shri P.C. Markose as a Foreman effective from 1st October, 1951 on a Foreman's initial basic salary plus rupees twenty-five."
The dispute concerning Mathai and Augustine was given up by the settlement.
3. In the second reference in which the appellant Union was involved, two of the terms agreed to were as follows:
"(1) The principle that supervisors and other employees in the Company above their grade are not workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is accepted and accordingly the Aluminium Factory Workers' Union undertakes to exclude all such employees from their membership."
(2) The employers agree to make an ex-gratia payment of rupees twenty each to all workers whose basic wage is rupees one hundred and fifty per month or less on 31st December, 1951."
It is quite obvious that the two references were settled together by one scheme of agreement, and formed one connected whole, the settlement in each case being a consideration for the other.
4. Sometime after the aforesaid awards the said Mathai was discharged and thereupon the appellant Union raised an industrial dispute concerning it. On 14-7-1954, the Government of Travancore-Cochin made an order under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referring for adjudication the question whether the discharge of Mathai was justifiable and if not, to what relief he was entitled to the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam.
5. When the matter came up for hearing before the Tribunal the Company took three preliminary objections against the reference, namely, (a) Mathai was not a workman and hence the reference was not competent; (b) in view of the aforesaid awards dated 19-1-1952, the workmen were precluded from contending that Mathai was a workman; and (c) that in any view of the matter there can be no reference or adjudication except after the termination of the aforesaid earlier awards under Section 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal decided these preliminary objections against the Company and proposed to proceed with the reference. The Company then moved the High Court of Kerala under Article 226 of the Constitution for an order quashing t
