Back
1969 Supreme(Raj) 234
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
V.P.Tyagi, J.
Cement Works Karmachari Sangh, Sawai Madhopur and another - Appellants
Versus
Judge, Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan and others - Respondents
Civil Writ Petns. Nos. 614 of 1965 and 305 of 1968.
Decided On : 10-10-1969
For the Management of Jaipur Udyog Ltd., Sawai-Madhopur :C.N. Sharrna and Sagar Mal Mehta, Advocates.
A settlement arrived at between the parties to an industrial dispute is a valid settlement under the Act if it is signed by the parties in the manner prescribed by the Rules and a copy thereof is sent to the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to make an award in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties to an industrial dispute. Rule 20(2) of the Rules is not applicable where there is only one trade union representing the workmen. The Tribunal is not required to scrutinise the merits of a settlement arrived at between the parties to an industrial dispute before making an award in terms of the settlement. A party to an industrial dispute who has taken the full advantage of a settlement is estopped from challenging the award on technical grounds.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 10 - SETTLEMENT - VALIDITY - AWARD - JURISDICTION OF TRIBUNAL - RULE 20(2) OF THE RAJASTHAN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES RULES, 1958 - MANDATORY - NOTICE - NUMEROUS PARTIES - TRADE UNION - ESTOPPEL - WRIT PETITION - DELAY.
Fact of the Case:
The Cement Works Karmachari Sangh, Sawai-Madhopur (the union) raised a dispute regarding the fixation of various types of workmen in the factory as well as at the quarries in the grades recommended by the Wage Board. The dispute was referred by the State Government to the Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. During the pendency of the dispute, a settlement was arrived at between the union and the management, which was recorded on 17th November, 1964. The Tribunal, by its order dated 26th November, 1964, gave its award on the strength of the aforesaid settlement. The union challenged the award on various grounds, including that the settlement was not a proper settlement, that the reference made by the State Government to the Tribunal was misconceived, that the award was vitiated because of mandatory provisions of Rule 20(2) of the Rules made under the Act by the State of Rajasthan were not complied with by the Tribunal, and that the Tribunal acted mechanically in giving its award on the strength of the settlement without scrutinising whether the settlement was a proper one.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the settlement was a valid settlement under the Act and that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to make an award in terms of the settlement. The Court further held that Rule 20(2) of the Rules was not applicable in the present case as there was only one trade union representing the workmen and that the union was estopped from challenging the award on technical grounds after having taken the full advantage of the settlement for almost complete one year.
Issues: 1. Whether the settlement arrived at between the union and the management was a valid settlement under the Act? 2. Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to make an award in terms of the settlement? 3. Whether the award was vitiated because of mandatory provisions of Rule 20(2) of the Rules made under the Act by the State of Rajasthan were not complied with by the Tribunal? 4. Whether the Tribunal acted mechanically in giving its award on the strength of the settlement without scrutinising whether the settlement was a proper one? 5. Whether the union was estopped from challenging the award on technical grounds after having taken the full advantage of the settlement for almost complete one year?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A settlement arrived at between the parties to an industrial dispute is a valid settlement under the Act if it is signed by the parties in the manner prescribed by the Rules and a copy thereof is sent to the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer. 2. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to make an award in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties to an industrial dispute. 3. Rule 20(2) of the Rules is not applicable where there is only one trade union representing the workmen. 4. The Tribunal is not required to scrutinise the merits of a settlement arrived at between the parties to an industrial dispute before making an award in terms of the settlement. 5. A party to an industrial dispute who has taken the full advantage of a settlement is estopped from challenging the award on technical grounds.
Final Decision: Both the writ petitions were dismissed.
"How the workman of Jaipur Udyog Limited. Sawai-Madhopur should be fixed in the various grades proposed by the Central Wage Board on Cement Industry?"
While the dispute was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, a settlement was arrived at between the union and the management which was recorded on 17th of November, 1964. This settlement was signed on behalf of the union by Parmanand, President, Chittar Singh, Vice-President, Vinod Shanker Pareek, Office Secretary and Devilal Sandilya, Joint Secretary, whereas Messrs. R. N. Chaturvedi Works Manager and M. L. Rathi, Secretary appended their signatures on behalf of the management. Both the parties, who sought various adjournments from the Industrial Tribunal, and requested to give an award on the basis of the settlement. The learned Judge presiding over the Tribunal by his order dated 26th November, 1964, gave his award on t
