The court emphasized the importance of allowing parties to settle their disputes amicably and the duty of the Tribunal to record such agreements or compromises, as long as they are lawful and fair to the parties involved.

1. This is a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution filed by K.Krishnankutty Nair claiming to be the General Secretary of the Jumna Thread Mills Employees' Union, Koratty and calling in question, on behalf of the employees, the award dated 16-9-1956 passed by the first respondent, the Industrial Tribunal, Trivandrum in Industrial Dispute No. 106 of 1955. The Jumna Thread Mills (Private) Ltd., Koratty who are the employers and opposite party to the Industrial Dispute are impleaded as the 2nd respondent.

2. Early in May 1955 a series of industrial disputes arose between the 2nd respondent and their workmen represented by the Union. These disputes comprising 23 questions were referred under S.10 (1) C of the Industrial Disputes Act (Central Act XIV of 1947) to the 1st respondent, on 16-8-1955 as I D No 105 of 1955. Pending this reference the Union raised 41 further demands and as the management did not agree, these demands were placed for conciliation before the Labour Commissioner on 30-5-1955. While so on 8-8-1956 the company took disciplinary action against some of the workmen in the course of which, they placed the petitioner, General Secretary herein and another under suspension and also filed two S.3 petitions for their dismissal. On 16-8-1956 the Secretary of the Union gave a notice to the management calling for the cancellation of all the disciplinary proceedings and further requiring the grant of all the demands of the workmen till then made, within the next hour. The company failed to comply and the Union thereupon ordered a strike of all the workmen on and from that date. This strike was the twelfth in the course of the past two years and, in the Company's opinion, on as flimsy a ground as the rest. So the company felt that it was not wise or possible to carry on, unless better counsel prevailed through the rank and file and accordingly declared a lock out of the Mills on 21-8-1956 In between these two dates of strike and lock-out and apparently with foreknowledge of the Company's reaction, the President and Secretary of the Union and 24 other workmen, constituting what they called an action committee approached Mr. Panampilly Govinda Menon to intervene and bring about a mutual agreement between the workers and the company, leaving it to him to do all the needful. Mr. Govinda Menon wanted to assure himself that the workmen would stay loyal to him and therefore got them to assemble in general meting on 8-9-1954 and declare their attitude. In that meeting it would appear more than 800 of the 1004 workmen unanimously elected Mr. Govinda Menon himself as the President and one of themselves, V.K. Thomas as General Secretary, of their new'Jumuna Thread Mills Labour Union'. Compromise talks with the management soon followed with the result that an agreed remedy for all the pending disputes between the company and their workmen whether before the Tribunal or the Commissioner, was arrived at. On 14-9-1956 when the main dispute I.D. No. 105 of 1956 came on for evidence in the usual course, a petition for withdrawal of the dispute accompanied by a statement containing the terms of settlement was filed before the Tribunal. Purporting to speak for the workmen the petitioner objected to the withdrawal of the dispute as above mainly on the basis that the move was unauthorised and was also against the real interests of the workmen. The Tribunal conducted an enquiry on the points raised and passed orders on 16-8-1956 allowing the petition for withdrawal. Later, on 22-9-1956 the Tribunal passed its award accepting the terms of the compromise and holding that there was no subsisting dispute to be decided by the Tribunal. The award was published in the Gazette dated 16-10-1956 and is filed here as Ext. C. It is this award that is attacked in these proceedings.

3. Before proceeding to set out the contentions of the petitioner it will be useful to extract the relevant terms of the compromise agreement which accompanied the pet