Disputes related to the terms of employment, including settlements, can be raised as industrial disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 08.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18902 of 2019.)

1. The appeal questions the correctness of the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge contending that the conclusion drawn by the Court that the issue involving the validity of a Settlement under Section 12(3) can be raised under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, “the 1947 Act”) is not correct.

2. Learned counsel has cited the Division Bench judgment in the case of Pudukottai Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and others v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others, decided on 23.11.2007 [(2008) 3 MLJ 456], to urge that if the action of the Conciliation Officer was questionable and was patently illegal, then the writ petition could be entertained and the issue with regard to a settlement having been arrived at under Section 12(3) of the 1947 Act being binding, was not required to be referred for adjudication before the Labour Court. It is urged that the Conciliation Officer was not justified in proceeding to entertain a partisan bipartite agreement settled by the Management so as to give a closure to the entire issue.

3. The learned Single Judge has held that an exercise cannot be undertaken under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to probe into the evidence and the facts relating to the settlement, as to whether it was binding, or was fair and proper or not. This, according to the learned Single Judge, was a matter to be adjudicated only by the Labour Court/Tribunal under the 1947 Act.

4. A settlement under Section 12(3) of the 1947 Act is an outcome of an exercise undertaken in conciliation proceedings by the Conciliation Officer. A report of such conciliation has to be sent to the appropriate Government together with the memorandum of settlement signed by the parties to the dispute. In the event of settlement not having been arrived at, a report has to be sent in this regard as to why the settlement could not be arrived at. It is on receipt of any such report that a reference can be made to the Board, Labour Court, Tribunal or the forums prescribed therein and if the reference is not made, the Government can communicate and record reasons for not making such a reference.

5. A settlement which is arrived at finally under Section 12(3) of the 1947 Act is binding in terms of Section 18 of the 1947 Act. There cannot be any dispute on this, but the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Conciliation Officer did not apply his mind to the terms of the settlement and erroneously proceeded with the same that was set up, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, by a splinter group or a minority group of members of a union.

6. In order to examine the issue as to whether such a dispute can also be raised as an industrial dispute or not, the provisions of Section 2(k) of the 1947 Act are relevant, which is extracted herein under:

“Section 2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context.-

(a) to (j) ****

(k) 'industrial dispute' means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person.”

7. The said provision categorically holds that an industrial dispute means any dispute which may be even connected with the terms of employment. Settlement is nothing else, but it relates to the terms of the employment of the workmen and such other benefits that may have been arrived at. The definition covers almost every aspect of terms of employment and, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that an industrial dispute cannot be raised is not correct. In the present case, a challenge has been raised to a settlement dated 4.6.2019 which is sa