The judgment establishes the importance of compliance with statutory provisions and the need for authorization by the executive committee of the union or specific provisions in the union's constitution for entering into a settlement with the management.

1. Heard Mr. V. Menezes, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. A. F. Diniz, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The above petition inter-alia prays for quashing of the award dated 08.09.1998 and consequentially remand the reference back to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication on merits.

3. The brief facts of the case as stated by the petitioners are that the workers representing the ACGL worker's Union raised a demand with the management of the respondent no.1 that they be paid 20% bonus. The management refused to accede to the said demand and accordingly, the workers went on one day strike. Thereafter on 05.11.1985, the workmen concerned with the dispute in the above petition who were the office bearers of the Union were suspended and a charge-sheet was issued to such workmen alleging various acts of violence committed at the factory gate during the protest. But however, no inquiry on such chargesheet was completed. Accordingly, without holding any inquiry and without following the principle of natural justice, the services of the petitioners were terminated. Consequently, the Union raised a demand for reinstatement of the petitioners with all consequential benefits somewhere on 25.08.1986. As the management was not accepting the demands, the same were carried before the Labour Commissioner in conciliation and such demands were pending in conciliation. In the meanwhile, the earlier wage settlement dated 25.05.1984 expired after a period of three years i.e. somewhere on 30.05.1987. The management claimed that a section of the workmen raised a charter of demands for wages. It was stated by the management that amongst the said demands, the said section of the workmen purported to raise demand No.6 asking for reinstatement of the “terminated workmen”. It is however the contention of the petitioners that the said section of the workmen were not empowered to raise such demands and negotiate any demand on behalf of the said workmen. The management thereafter claims to have signed a settlement with some of the workmen after negotiation and fixing the wages somewhere on 17.10.1987. The settlement was also signed in terms of Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in the said settlement the group of workmen who had signed such settlement stated that since the demand for reinstatement of the terminated workmen is not acceptable, the same was treated as withdrawn. It is further the contention of the petitioners that the said settlement cannot be treated to be a settlement in terms of law for various reasons. In the meanwhile, thereafter on 30.10.1987, the ACGL worker's Union raised a charter of demands on the company/respondent no.1 wherein it demanded certain general demands as to wages. However, while raising such demands in order to maintain the harmonious industrial relationship, it also reiterated its demands that 16 workers whose names were given in the charter should be reinstated. But however, a failure report was made on 26.11.1987. Thereafter on 23.03.1988 a settlement was signed between a majority of the workmen and the management of the company wherein the Union denied that the earlier settlement dated 17.10.1987 was signed by the majority. The settlement states that it was agreed between the parties that the benefits enjoyed by the signatories to the settlement dated 17.10.1987 would be conferred on the signatories to the new settlement. It is further the contention of the petitioners that what was contemplated as per the settlement was only monetary benefits and the demand of reinstatement of 16 workmen has not been given up. In the meanwhile, on 01.06.1988, the Government of Goa issued an order refusing to refer the dispute of the Union for adjudication before the learned Tribunal. A challenge was made to the said order before this Court and the Government was thereafter directed to refer the dispute with regard to the dismissal of the workmen to the Industrial Trib