Back
2002 Supreme(Cal) 578
High Court Of Calcutta
A. K. MATHUR, J. K. BISWAS
MAYURAKSHI COTTON MILLS 1990 LTD - Appellant
Versus
NINTH INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, DURGAPUR - Respondent
W. P. 3547 (W) Of 2001
Decided On : 09/02/2002
ABHIJIT CHATTERJI, B.R.BHATTACHARJEE, CHANDRANATH ARIGA, DIPAYAN CHOUDHURY, K.K.BANDOPADHYAY, PRANAB DUTTA, SOUMYA MAJUMDAR
A Tribunal has the power to add a party to a proceeding at any stage, and it is required to do so when the presence of that party is necessary for a just and complete adjudication of the dispute.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - VALIDITY OF BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT - JURISDICTION OF TRIBUNAL - NOTICE TO UNION - SECTION 18(1) OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - RULE 20D(2) OF THE WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES RULES, 1958.
Fact of the Case:
A bipartite settlement was entered into between a company and its employees represented by one union. Two other unions challenged the settlement and the dispute was referred to an Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal declared the settlement invalid without issuing notice to the union that was a party to the settlement.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal erred in not issuing notice to the union that was a party to the bipartite settlement. The Tribunal had the power under Rule 20D(2) of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 to add the union as a party to the proceeding at any stage. The Tribunal's failure to do so rendered the award vitiated by jurisdictional error.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal had the power to issue a notice suo moto for bringing the Mazdoor Union the record. 2. Whether on the facts appearing from the order of reference and the written statements filed by the parties to the reference the Tribunal was required to bring the said Mazdoor Union on record by exercising the power conferred by said rule 20d (2) suo moto.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Tribunal had the necessary statutory power to add the Mazdoor Union as a party to the proceeding at any stage from after the stage of filing written statements by the parties to dispute as named in the order of reference. 2. The Tribunal was required to bring the Mazdoor Union on record by exercising the power conferred by said rule 20d (2) suo moto, as the settlement in question was arrived at by an agreement between the company and its employees/workmen represented by the Mazdoor Union only; and it was arrived at otherwise than in the course of a conciliation proceeding. Accordingly, such bipartite settlement was binding in terms of section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 only on the parties to the said agreement.
Final Decision: The impugned award dated 14th November 2000, passed by the Tribunal was set aside. The Tribunal was directed to bring the Mazdoor Union on record of the reference case; and decide the dispute after giving the said union reasonable opportunity of contesting the case, if desired, by leading evidence on the issues mentioned in the order of reference.
( 1 ) SINCE the subject-matter of challenge in both the writ petitions is same, the award dated 14th November 2000 passed by the Ninth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal at Durgapur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), they have been heard together ; and we propose to dispose of them by this common judgment.
( 2 ) A company known by the name of 'mayurakshi Cotton Mills Ltd. ' having its factory at Panchra, Birbhum, in West Bengal was wound up in terms of the BIFR's order dated 20th September 1989. Its assets were purchased by the Government of West Bengal for Rs. 108,80,092. 00. To re-open and run the said factory, on 4th January 1990 the Government constituted a 'committee-of-management' (hereinafter referred to as 'the committee' ). On 18th February 1990 the factory was re-opened. Most of the employees/workmen of the erstwhile company were engaged afresh by the committee on temporary basis.
( 3 ) THREE unions, namely, (1) Mayurakshi Cotton Mills Mazdoor Union, (2) Mayurakshi Cotton Mills Employees' Union, and (3) Mayurakshi Cotton Mills Shramick Union (hereinafter referred to as 'the Mazdoor Union', 'the Employees' Union, and the Shramick Union respectively) became active in the said factory.
( 4 ) TWO unions: The Employees' Union and the Shramick Union demanded introduction of new wage structure and benefits of provident funds, leave, etc. They filed a writ petitions in this Court for those benefits. By an order of a learned single Judge dated 27th September 1991 it was disposed of ; the Government was directed to settle the disputes within six months from the date of communication of the said order.
( 5 ) HOWEVER, numerous labour troubles started enveloping the said factory. Ultimately, alleging continuous unlawful, illegal, riotous, and disorderly activities and wanton indiscipline indulged in by a section of the workmen claimed to be members of the Employees' Union and the Shramick Union, the committee declared a lock out with effect from 5th August 1992.
( 6 ) THE Employees' Union and the Shramick Union challenged the lock out notice dated 5th August 1992 by filing a writ petition (C. O. No. 13796 (W) of 1992 ). During pendency of this writ petition the committee and the Mazdoor Union entered into a bipartite settlement dated 27th February 1993. Terms and conditions as agreed by the parties were incorporated in the said settlement for the purpose of lifting the lock out. Pursuant to the said settlement the lock out was lifted with effect from 14th March 1993.
( 7 ) BY a judgment and order of a learned single Judge dated 16th August 1993 the said writ petition - filed challenging the lock out notice - was dismissed with liberty given to petitioners therein to approach the forum establish under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On appeal (MAT No. 2905 of 1993), a Division Bench of this Court by a judgment and order dated 20th March 1995 set aside the said judgment and order of the learned single Judge. The Appeal Court directed the committee to re-engage all the member employees/workmen of the Employees' Union and the Shramick Union, without insisting on the compliance with the terms of conditions of the said bipartite settlement by such employees/workmen.
( 8 ) THE committee's appeal (Civil Appeal No. 6552 of 1995) therefrom was disposed of by the Supreme Court by the judgment and order dated 8th March 2000; the relevant portion whereof is as follows : we have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. Whether a settlement is fair or unfair or valid cannot be examined in the absence of factual background on which the same was entered into. If really the mills was in financial doldrums and retrenchment had to take place in some form or the other and if a method was to be worked out by the management and the workmen, which is fair, it cannot easily be said that the mills should not work with lesser number of workmen and provide a scheme f
