Back
High Court Of Delhi
KRISHAN LAL MEHTA - Appellant
Versus
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - Respondent
Civil Writ 917 of 1968
Decided On : 08/05/1970
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 10-A - SETTLEMENT - VOLUNTARY REFERENCE OF DISPUTES TO ARBITRATION - VALIDITY - CONDITIONS PRECEDENT - ARBITRATION AGREEMENT - APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR OR ARBITRATORS - PRESCRIBED FORM - PUBLICATION IN OFFICIAL GAZETTE - NON-COMPLIANCE - EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, employed as assistant manager and head booking clerk in a cinema house, were suspended and later dismissed from service. They raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal held that a settlement between the Motion Pictures Association and the Cine Employees Association, which provided for the settlement of disputes through arbitration, was binding on the parties and barred the adjudication of the dispute by the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that clause (5) of the settlement, which provided for the settlement of disputes through arbitration, did not amount to a binding settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, as it did not amount to an agreement of a voluntary reference of disputes to arbitration as contemplated by Section 10-A of the Act. The court found that the settlement did not name the arbitrator or arbitrators to decide the dispute, which was a condition precedent for invoking the provisions of Section 10-A.
Issues: Whether clause (5) of the settlement between the Motion Pictures Association and the Cine Employees Association constituted a binding settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act provides for a reference of disputes to arbitration by means of a written agreement before the dispute is referred to a Labour Court or Tribunal. The existence of an arbitration agreement, with the conditions laid down in Section 10-A, is a condition precedent to put in motion the machinery prescribed by the Act for voluntary arbitration. In the absence of an agreement of reference answering the conditions laid down in Section 10-A, it is not open to any party to the dispute to move the appropriate Government in terms of subsection (3) of this Section.
Final Decision: The court set aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for decision according to law.
( 1 ) THE petitioners in this case, Krishan Lal Mehta and Madan Lal Luthra, employed as assistant Manager and Head Booking; Clerk respectively in the cinema-house run by respondent No. 2, have filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying that the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, respondent No. . 1, dated July 23. 1968. made on a dispute raised by them be quashed and the Tribunal be directed to decide the reference on merits.
( 2 ) FACTS leading to this petition stated briefly are that on 1st November, 1964, both these petitioners were suspended from service by the employers pending inquiry into certain charges levelled against them. After inquiry, on May 24, 1965, they were dismissed from service and no payment was allowed to them either by way of salary or for the period of suspension. Thereupon they raised an industrial dispute and as it could not otherwise be settled, on April 15, 1967, the Lt. Governor, Delhi, referred the same for decision to the Industrial Tribunal. After inviting statement of claims, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues on the pleadings of the parties :
("1) Whether the dispute is only an individual and not an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
(2) Whether Shri K. L. Mehta was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act on the date of his dismissal and the reference is, therefore, incompetent ?
(3 ). Whether the reference is had on the grounds stated in para 5 of the written-statement of the management ?
(4) Whether the dispute has been raised 19 months after the date of dismissal of the two workmen and if so, what is the effect?
(5) Whether there is a subsisting settlement dated 22nd October, 1963 between the Cine Employees Association and the Motion Pictures Association which is a bar to the raising of the present dispute and the reference which followed ? What is the effect of this objection not having been raised in the written-statement ?
(6) Whether termination of service of Sarvshri K. L. Mehta and M. L. Luthra was unjustified If so, to what relief are these workmen entitled ?
(7) Whether these workmen are entitled to wages for the suspension period ? If so, what directions are necessary in this respect ?
( 3 ) BY award dated 23rd July. 1968, the Tribunal decided issues 1. 2, 3 and 4 against the managment but under issue No. 5 came to the conclusion that on October 22, 1963. there was a settlement proved as Exhibit M/6 before it between the Motion pictures Association representing the employers of the cinemas in Delhi (including the cinema house of respondent No. 2 where the petitioners were employed) and the Cine Employees Association (representing the workers) which was binding on the parties. Para 5 of this Settlement, the Tribunal held, provided the mode of settling disputes arising between the-parties through arbitration and till that mode of settling the dispute was exhausted the reference for adjudication to the Tribunal was not maintainable. The reference. Tor this reason, was held to be Barred and the award directed that the petitioners were not entitled to any relief. Shri Madan Mohan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has attacked the award on several grounds. His first and the foremost contention is that para 5 of this Settlement relied upon by the Tribunal did not in law constitute a Settlement within the. meaning of sub-section (3) of S. 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called "the Act") so as to be binding on the parties and to operate as a bar to the adjudication of the dispute by the Tribunal. The contention has merit and in the view -of the matter that we are taking on this point we consider it unnecessary to go into the other grounds urged by Shri Madan Mohan in support of the relief.
( 4 ) IT would be appropriate at this stage for purposes of dealing with this point to give the particulars of the Settl
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
