Back
1982 Supreme(Ker) 134
Judges : M.P.MENON
MANOHARAN NAIR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA - Respondent
Case No : O.P. No. 6095 of 1981
Decided On : 07/13/1982
Advocates Appeared :
Varghese Kalliath; For Petitioners Government Pleader; For Respondents
The competence of the conciliation officer to deal with all disputes brought to his notice, whether existing at the commencement or arising during the pendency of proceedings, and the binding nature of settlements when countersigned by the conciliation officer.
Headnote:
Settlement - Industrial Disputes Act - Ext. P3 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, particularly focusing on the authority and jurisdiction of the conciliation officer, the validity of settlements, and the termination of settlements. The court emphasized that a settlement made with a minority will bind all the workmen of the establishment when it is countersigned by the conciliation officer, unless it is established that the dispute related to some special section of the workers with a special kind of demand. The judgment also highlighted the competence of the conciliation officer to deal with all disputes brought to his notice, whether existing at the commencement or arising during the pendency of proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash Ext. P3 settlement and initiate conciliation proceedings in respect of the charter of demands annexed to Ext. P2. The dispute arose from the rejection of the Central Government's proposal by the unions, leading to the drawing up of Ext. P3 settlement, which was challenged by two of the unions. The petitioners contended that Ext. P3 was inoperative and void, and that a fresh dispute had arisen in respect of the demands.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the Original Petition, stating that Ext. P3 was valid and binding, and the conciliation officer had jurisdiction to countersign it and give it the extended operation. The court also held that the other unions were precluded from raising fresh disputes regarding the service conditions covered by Ext. P3 until a specified date.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of Ext. P3 settlement, the jurisdiction of the conciliation officer, and the termination of Ext. P1 settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a settlement made with a minority will bind all the workmen of the establishment when it is countersigned by the conciliation officer, unless it is established that the dispute related to some special section of the workers with a special kind of demand. The judgment also highlighted the competence of the conciliation officer to deal with all disputes brought to his notice, whether existing at the commencement or arising during the pendency of proceedings.
Final Decision: The Original Petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
1. Two trade unions and two workmen of the HMT. establishment at Kalamassery, are the petitioners herein, and the prayer is to quash Ext. P3 settlement and direct the conciliation officers of the State to initiate conciliation proceedings in respect of the charter of demands annexed to Ext. P2. The facts, as disclosed by the pleadings and the documents produced, are the following:
2. On 2-11-1978, the management of H.M.T. entered into a long-term conciliation settlement with all the then existing eight trade unions of the establishment. That settlement is Ext. P1, and clause (6) thereof provided:
"This settlement is without prejudice to the Union's right to take up the issues of revision of minimum wages and the enhancement of the rate of neutralisation of D.A. beyond Rs. 1.30 per point with the Government of India and if the Government of India agrees to the improvement in the minimum wages and or the DA neutralisation rate, the management agrees to make necessary modification to the minimum wages and DA neutralisation rate and consequential adjustment in the wage structure in consultation with the unions".
Clause (17) provided:
"This settlement shall be operative and binding on both the parties upto 30-6-1981 and will thereafter continue to remain binding on them until it is terminated in writing by either party by giving two months notice of their intention to do so".
It appears that after the settlement, there was merger of some of the unions and only six of them survived.
3. The unions wanted the Central Government to consider the question of minimum wages and DA as provided for in clause (6), but the Government was not favourably disposed. The workmen went on strike from 26-12-1980, but that was called off on 16-3-1981. A conference was convened at New Delhi, when the Central Government, instead of conceding the claim for minimum wages, neutralisation and restructuring of wages on that basis, made a counter-proposal to pay a lump sum of Rs. 700/- to all the workmen and to grant an extra allowance of Rs. 251- per mensem from 1-1-1981, on condition that they agreed to extend the period of operation of Ext P1 settlement The unions rejected the proposal; they stood firm on the demands made under clause (6) of Ext. P1. The Regional Joint Labour Commissioner convened another conference on 2-7-1981, and here again the management offered the "Delhi terms". This conference also failed. The Additional Labour Commissioner of the State called another conference on 7-7-1981, and at this conference, three of the unions agreed to accept the Central Government's proposal, and to extend the operation of Ext. P1 till 31-12-1982. Despite the objections of the other unions, Ext. P3 settlement was drawn up on that day incorporating the aforesaid terms, and the Additional Labour Commissioner countersigned it with the following endorsement:
"The HMT Employees Federation, HMT Essential Employees Union and HMT. Workers Congress (I) did not sign the settlement even though their representatives attended the conference. I am convinced, on the basis of the verification report given by the Dy. Registrar of Trade Unions, that the unions signing this agreement represent the majority of the workers and the terms of this settlement are fair and reasonable."
4. The challenge to Ext P3 is now raised by two of the unions who had declined to accept its terms on 7-7-1981. On 29-7-1981 one of them (H.M.T, Employee's Federation) sent Ext. P2 letter to the Labour Commissioner purporting to terminate Ext. P1 settlement under S.19(2) of the I. D. Act, and enclosing a charter of demands of the same date, addressed to the management. The contention of the petitioners is that Ext. P3 is inoperative and void, and that Ext. P1 having been terminated by Ext. P2, a fresh dispute had arisen in respect of the demands aforesaid and the conciliation officers are bound to take action for resolving it.
5. The first contention raised for attacking Ext. P3 is that the concili
