Orders passed by an Industrial Tribunal allowing the parties to withdraw a dispute from adjudication by it are not awards within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - S. 2(b), 10, 15, 17, 17A, 18(3), 20(3), 33, 33A - WITHDRAWAL OF REFERENCE - EFFECT - ORDERS PASSED BY TRIBUNAL - WHETHER AWARDS - DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE - MEANING OF.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were employees of the respondent company. In 1954-55, there were disputes between the respondent and its workmen represented by a union. Three references were made by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal under S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. During the pendency of these references, the parties arrived at a settlement and agreed to refer the disputes to private arbitration. The Industrial Tribunal allowed the parties to withdraw the references and made orders which were styled as awards. The petitioners were dismissed from service within one month from the date of publication of the awards. They filed applications before the Industrial Tribunal under S. 33A of the Act, contending that their dismissal was in contravention of S. 33 of the Act. The Tribunal dismissed the applications holding that the orders made by it were not awards and that the proceedings before it had terminated on the dates on which it had passed orders allowing the disputes to be withdrawn.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the orders passed by the Tribunal were not awards within the meaning of the Act. The Tribunal had allowed the parties to withdraw the disputes from adjudication by it and there was no determination of the disputes by it. Consequently, the orders made by the Tribunal were not awards within the meaning of the Act. The proceedings before the Tribunal came to an end when it passed orders allowing the withdrawals. The petitioners were dismissed thereafter and no proceedings were pending before the Tribunal when they were dismissed. The provisions of S. 33 could not therefore be said to have been contravened.
Issues: Whether the orders passed by the Tribunal were awards within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Ratio Decidendi: An award under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 must be a determination of an industrial dispute or any question relating thereto by an Industrial Tribunal. Where a Tribunal allows a matter to be withdrawn in order that it may be referred to a private arbitrator for adjudication, there remains no dispute before it on which it can adjudicate and there is no determination of the dispute itself. Consequently, the orders passed by the Tribunal in such cases are not awards within the meaning of the Act.
Final Decision: The High Court discharged the rules issued on the five applications filed by the petitioners.

JUDGMENT - (1) The petitioners in these five applications were employees of the Maharana Mills Ltd. at Porbundar, respondent No. 2, to whom I will hereinafter refer to as the respondent. In 1954-55 there were disputes between the respondent and its workmen represented by Maharana Mill Majoor Mahajan Sangh. Three references were then made by the Saurashtra Government under S, 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Industrial Tribunal. These were References No. 47 of 1954, 91 of 1955 and 102 of 1956. During the pendency of these refrerences before the Industrial Tribunal the parties arrived at a settlement, by which they agreed to refer the disputes between them to private arbitration. On 8th Jue 1956 an application signed on behalf of both the parties, that is to say, the respondent and the workmen represented by Maharana Mill Majoor Mahajan Sangh, was made to the Industrial Tribunal in each of the three cases pending before it. In this application it was stated that the parties to the disputes had agreed "to settle all matters by private negotiatiibs and/or arbitration as per agreement" attached to the application and they requested the Tribunal "to grant permission to withdraw all the cases without the same being dismissed". The agreement annexed to the application was in the following terms :

"The Maharana mills Private Ltd., Porbandar and the Maharana Mill Majoor Mahajan Sangh, Porbandar, do hereby agree and settle that the matter in adjudication No. 102 of 1955 be withdrawn from tthe Honble without the same being dismissed and settle the same as follows:

Terms of Settlement.

1. That the following Arbitration Board will finally decide the matter in Adjudication No. 102 of 1955.

"Arbitration Board

"Mills Representatives:

1. Shri Ambalal Maganlal Joshi and/or

2. Shri Prafulchandra P. Gundavada.

"Unions Representatives:

1. Shri V. K. Trivedi, and/or

2. Shri Kantilal B. Shah.

2. In case of difference betw3een the arbitrators, the arbitrators shall jointly appoint an Umpire, failing agreed decisions Honble the Industrial Tribunal Shri D. L. Master will act as Umpire.

3. The decision of the arbitration board will be given within two monsth hereafter.

4. The decision of the Arbitrators and/or the Umpire will be binding t the parties.

5. This settlement will be confirmed before Conciliation Officer within 15 days hereafter."On the application in reference No. 47 the Industrial Tribunal made the following order:

"The terms of agreement have been filed by the parties. I, therefore, give my awward as per terms of settlement appended herfewith."

Orders in practically the same terms were made in the other two references. The orders which are styled as Awards, were made in two references on 9th June and in the third on 11th June 1956. They were published as awards in the Saurashtra Government Gazette on 13th June, 1956.

(2) The petitioners in these five applications were dismissed between 14th June 1956 and 16th June 1956 on different charges of abusing and asssaulting the officers of the Mills, of damaging property belonging to the Mills and for refusing to perform their normal duties by adopting go-slow Indeustrial Tribunal under S. 33-A of the Act by the petitioners, in which they contended that as they had been dismissed within one month from the date of the publication of the awards i.e. 13th June 1956, there had been a contravnetion of the provisions of S. 33 of the Act. They therefore prayed for orders directing their reinstatement and the payment to them of wages from the dates of their dismissal.

(3) The respondent resisted the applications made by the petitioners on various grounds. It was contended that as the Industrial Tribunal had allowed the parties to withdraw the references pending before it, it could not make any awards. Even though the orders made by it were termed as awards, they were not awards within the meaning of the Act. As they were not awards, they were not required to be published and the question of their enforceability d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document