Back
1965 Supreme(Pat) 117
PATNA HIGH COURT
R.L.Narasimham and S.N.P.Singh JJ.
Ballarpur Collieries Company
Versus
Salim M.Merchant
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 721 of 1962 ;
Decided On : OCTOBER 28, 1965
A person who is summoned as a party to a reference before the Industrial Tribunal under Section 36A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, can cease to be a party in the eye of law merely by filing an application before the said Tribunal dissociating himself from the proceeding and subsequently declining to take any part in the proceeding, especially when the rival party, namely, the workmen in this case, did not object to his dissociating himself from the proceeding and did not themselves take any part in the proceeding.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 23 - STRIKE - LEGALITY - CONDITIONS - PENDENCY OF CONCILIATION OR TRIBUNAL PROCEEDINGS OR AWARD IN OPERATION - APPLICATION TO OMNIBUS REFERENCE - WITHDRAWAL FROM REFERENCE - PROCEDURE.
Fact of the Case:
A colliery owner applied to be discharged from a reference pending before the Industrial Tribunal under Section 36A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on the ground that the dispute did not concern his colliery. The Tribunal did not pass any express order on the application, and the colliery owner and his workmen did not take any part in the proceeding. The Tribunal, in its award, held that the colliery owner was bound by the award, whether he was a party or not. Subsequently, the workmen went on strike. The colliery owner filed an application before the Regional Labour Commissioner for a declaration that the strike was illegal.
Finding of the Court:
The Industrial Tribunal held that the strike was not illegal as it did not fall within the ambit of Section 23 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal found that there was no formal conciliation proceeding resulting in any settlement of a dispute as required by the Act when the Regional Labour Commissioner intervened in respect of an earlier strike and effected some sort of settlement between the workmen and the employer. The Tribunal also held that the matters covered by the settlement of the Regional Commissioner were not the same as the matters in dispute at the time of the strike in question. Further, the Tribunal found that the colliery owner and his workmen were not parties in the proceeding pending before the Industrial Tribunal, and that, consequently, Clause (b) of Section 23 had no application.
Issues: 1. Whether the strike was illegal under Section 23 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 2. Whether the colliery owner and his workmen were parties in the proceeding pending before the Industrial Tribunal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 23 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, makes a strike illegal if it takes place during the pendency of conciliation proceedings, or during the pendency of proceedings before the Tribunal, or during any period in which a settlement or award is in operation, in respect of any of the matters covered by the settlement or award. 2. In the present case, there was no formal conciliation proceeding resulting in any settlement of a dispute as required by the Act when the Regional Labour Commissioner intervened in respect of an earlier strike and effected some sort of settlement between the workmen and the employer. Therefore, Clause (c) of Section 23 had no application. 3. The matters covered by the settlement of the Regional Commissioner were not the same as the matters in dispute at the time of the strike in question. Therefore, even if the settlement made by the Regional Commissioner of Bombay in February, 1960, be held to have continued in operation, Clause (c) of Section 23 cannot have any application. 4. The colliery owner and his workmen were not parties in the proceeding pending before the Industrial Tribunal, as they had applied to be discharged from the proceeding and had not taken any part in the proceeding. Therefore, Clause (b) of Section 23 had no application.
Final Decision: The application filed by the colliery owner for quashing the order of the Industrial Tribunal was dismissed.
Narasimham, J.
1. This is an application for quashing an order passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, on the 16th April, 1962, in Bonus Appeal No. 12 of 1960, and for other consequential reliefs.
2. The petitioner is a firm of colliery owners in Dhanbad. In January-February, 1960, their workers went on strike by way of protest against the suspension of three workers for having caused derailment of coal-tubs. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Bombay, intervened in the dispute and brought about an agreement between the employer and the workmen. It is unnecessary to refer in detail all the terms of the agreement (Annexure D), but it is sufficient to say that the strike was in due course called off and the labourers also assured the said officer that "they would see that such strikes are not resorted to in future and would adopt all constitutional means to get their grievances redressed".
3. On the 23rd May, 1960, the Central Government, in exercise of the power conferred by Sec.36A of the Industrial Disputes Act, referred to one Shri G. Palit, Chairman, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, the following question, namely, "whether Traffic is to be placed in Grade II of the clerical service in terms of the award". The award here referred to is the award dated the 18th May, 1956, known as the Majumdar Award. During the course of the hearing of that reference (Reference No. 27 of 1960) before Shri Palit, some of the colliery owners (including the petitioner) in whose collieries there were no workmen with the designation of "Traffic" wanted to be excluded from the reference altogether on the ground that they were not interested in the dispute pending before the said Tribunal. The petitioner made such an application in August, 1960, stating as follows:
"So far as the petitioner is concerned this dispute does not concern these collieries because [hey have not got any traffic in employees coming under this category. As such the presence of the petitioner before this Tribunal is not necessary."
No express order either granting permission to the petitioner to withdraw from the dispute or refusing to grant such permission was passed by the Tribunal then. But thereafter the petitioner did not take any part in the proceeding before Shri Palit, and the workers of the petitioners colliery also did not take any steps to participate in the said reference. But in the award given by Shri Palit (known as Palits Award), which was published in the Gazette of India on the 22nd November, 1960, this application of the petitioner and other colliery owners was referred to in paragraph 8 as follows :
"Then with reference to the contention of some of the collieries that where the workmen designated as traffics do not occur, their names should be omitted from the present reference under Sec.18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. But this section has been wrongly invoked here. In the present case I have not summoned them in pursuance of the said section. So the question does not arise whether they were so summoned without proper cause. They have been summoned in the present case because they were parties to the original award. I have to summon all the parties who were impleaded in the original Coal Award. So this contention is overruled. In an omnibus or industry-wise reference it is not necessary that the dispute must relate to each one of them or the cause of action must exist in all cases. Even if the dispute is not there but they are made parties in the reference all that may be said is that they are under no obligation to implement the Award. But the award will be binding on all of them all the same. So I am unable to exclude them. (See the Gazette of India, dated the 26th November, 1960, Part I, Sec.1, page 255)."
4. Prior to the date of the Palits Award, however, the workers of the colliery went on strike from the 4th October, 1960. The cause of the strike was the dismissal of
