Back
2005 Supreme(Ker) 196
Judges : N.SANTOSH HEGDE,B.P.SINGH,S.B.SINHA
Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union - Appellant
Versus
Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. - Respondent
Case No : C.A.No.3475 of 2003
Decided On : 03/16/2005
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellant: ---- For the Respondents: ----
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a settlement reached during conciliation proceedings, with the assistance and concurrence of the Conciliation Officer, can be binding on all parties under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal has the jurisdiction to recall an Award before it becomes enforceable, but a recall sought on the grounds of the settlement not being duly considered is a review on merits, which requires specific provisions in the Act.
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act - Settlement - S.10(1)(d), S.12(5) - S.17A - S.18(3) - S.25FFA - S.20 - Review of Award - Conciliation Proceedings - Just and Fair Settlement
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute between the workers' union and the management of a company regarding the closure of looms and the refusal of work to a large number of workers. The appropriate government referred the disputes to the Industrial Tribunal, and a settlement was reached during conciliation proceedings. The Tribunal made an Award in favor of the settlement, but the union sought to recall the Award, arguing that the settlement was not just and fair.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to recall the Award before it became enforceable and to review its earlier order. However, it found that the recall was sought on the grounds of the settlement not being duly considered, which was not a procedural review but a review on merits. The High Court concluded that the settlement was fair and just, and it resolved the disputes referred to the Tribunal.
Issues: The core issue was whether the Tribunal was justified in recalling its earlier Award and in framing an additional issue for adjudication. The appellant argued that the recall was justified, while the respondent argued against it.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal had jurisdiction to recall the Award before it became enforceable, but the recall was sought on the grounds of the settlement not being duly considered, which was not a procedural review but a review on merits. The settlement was found to be fair and just, and it resolved the disputes referred to the Tribunal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.
B.P. Singh, J.
The appellant Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union has preferred this appeal by special leave which is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No.2084 of 1990 dated August 31, 2001 where by the Writ Petition preferred by the respondent-Management of M/s. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. was allowed and the order dated February 19, 1990 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No.II, Delhi was quashed. By the said order the Industrial Tribunal had in effect recalled its Award of June 12, 1987 and framed an additional issue to be tried by the Tribunal. The High Court held that the Award dated June 12, 1987 had effectively terminated the industrial dispute referred to the Tribunal by the appropriate government on December 13, 1982.
2. With a view of appreciate the submissions urged before us it would be necessary to notice the factual background in which these questions have arisen.
3. The appellant-Union is one the eight Unions representing the workers employed in the respondent-company. In the year 1982 on account of closure of some looms of the Weaving Section of the Mill disputes arose between the workmen and the Management of the respondent-Company. The appropriate government in exercise of its powers conferred by Ss.10(1) (d) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act’) referred the said disputes, to the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi vide Notification dated December 13, 1982. The reference was in the following terms:
"1. Whether the action of the Management in refusing duties to a large number of workers is illegal and/or unjustified, and if so, what directions are necessary in this regard?
2. Whether the management is justified in closing down a large number of looms in the mill and if not to what relief the affected workers are entitled and what further directions are necessary in this respect?"
4. While the reference was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, a settlement is purported to have been arrived at between the respondent-Management and its workmen. According to the Management this settlement was reached in the course of conciliation proceedings with the assistance and concurrence of the Conciliation Officer, namely the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Conciliation Officer, Delhi, M. Basai. It is the case of respondent-Management that after reference of the dispute further disputes arose between the Management and the Workmen and a notice of strike was served on the Management and some more demands were raised. The notice of strike was served on February 14, 1983 and the Management on April 4,1983 gave notice under S.25FFA of the Industrial Disputes Act for closing the undertaking relating to the Weaving Mill on account of Labour trouble resulting in huge financial losses. It is the case of the respondent Management that in these circumstances conciliation proceedings commenced and after great and sustained efforts, a settlement was arrived at between the Management and its Workmen in the course of conciliation Proceedings. The settlement has been reduced into writing, and it is not disputed that the same has been signed by representatives of the Management as well as the representatives of two Workers' Union as also by the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Conciliation Officer, M. Basai.
5. In view of the settlement reached between the parties, an application was moved before the Industrial tribunal which was seized of the disputes, which were the subject t matter of the reference made on December 13, 1982, with a prayer that in view of the settlement reached between the parties the Industrial Tribunal may be pleased to give its award in terms of the conciliation settlement dated May 17, 1983. One of the terms of the settlem5tnt was to the effect that both the parties will present a petition before the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi with a request to accept the terms of the settlement a
