Writ of mandamus cannot be issued for enforcing the settlement.

Sathiadev, J.

The prayer in the writ petitions filed by the Buckingham and Carnatic Mills Staff Union is for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the second respondent-Commissioner of Labour, Madras to prohibit the 3rd respondent. The Management of Binny limited (Buckingham and Carnatic Mills Unit) from laying off the staff until such time the voluntary retirement scheme is implemented as per cl. (v) of the Memorandum of Understanding which is annexed as Annexure "A" to the settlement dated 6-6-1981. In substance the petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the second respondent-Commissioner of Labour to enforce a settlement arrived at between the parties under S.12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. One of the questions, therefore, that arises for adjudication in this writ petition is the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the Commissioner of Labour to enforce a settlement arrived at between the management and the workmen under S.12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Writ petition No. 11168 of 1981 (K. Kalaimani - 114 others v. Govt. of India, Ministry of Commerce, by Its Secretary, New Delhi, & 6 others) was filed by some of employees of the Buckingham and Carnatic Mills against the management as well as the Commissioner of Labour, for an identical relief Ramanujam, J., before whom the writ petition came for admission, dismissed the writ petition in limine. The learned Judge has rendered an elaborate judgment and has come to the conclusion that once there is a S. 12(3) settlement between the management and its workmen, then the matter becomes a binding contract between the contracting parties and thereafter the relationship is purely contractual and if there is any breach of the settlement or its terms by any of the parties, then that matter has to be agitated elsewhere and not in proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

2. While, Mr. V. P. Raman, learned counsel for Buckingham and Carnatic Mills would state that the question of the maintainability of the writ petition is concluded by the judgment of Ramanujam, J., Mr. Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the view taken by Mr. Justice Ramanujam, regarding the maintainability of the writ petition is not correct and requires reconsideration. The learned counsel also would urge that the said judgment is not binding on me as it was dismissed at the stage of admission and has, therefore, no binding effect. No doubt, as rightly contended by Mr. Prasad, this decision cannot be a binding precedent on me as it has been dismissed at the stage of admission (vide-Dabur (D. R. S. K. Burman) v. The Workmen (1968)-I. M.L.J. (SN) 8) However, I am satisfied that the learned Judge, while disposing of the earlier petition, had elaborately considered the matter. In the circumstances, I feel that in substance, the correctness or otherwise of the view taken by Ramanujam, J., has to be considered. Further, the question raised is of some importance and is of frequent occurrence under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. I, therefore, consider it as appropriate that the matter should be heard and disposed of by a Bench. The Writ petition will be, therefore, placed before My Lord, the officiating Chief Justice for appropriate directions as to the writ petition being posted before a Bench.

3. Mr. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners states that in view of the urgency of the matter he got a date fixed for the expenditious disposal of the writ petitions and that is why the writ petitions had appeared at the top of the list. Learned counsel, therefore, makes a fervent appeal that the matter should be directed to be placed before the Bench at the top of the list. Any direction regarding the posting has only to be done by My Lord, the Officiating Chief Justice. I, therefore, recommend for the consideration of My Lord, the Officiating Chief Justice t