Back
2021 Supreme(Ori) 292
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Jaswant Singh, S.K. Panigrahi, JJ.
United Bilt Sewa Workers Union - Appellant
Versus
Sachin Ramchandran Jadav - Respondent
CONTC No. 637 of 2018
Decided On : 13-12-2021
Mr. Satyajit Behera, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. L. Samantaray, Aga, for the Respondent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding nature of settlements reached with the assistance of the Conciliation Officer under the Industrial Disputes Act, emphasizing the sanctity and enforceability of such settlements.
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act - Bilateral Settlement - Section 12(3), Section 18(1) - Section 18(3) - Section 18(3)(d)
Fact of the Case:
A statutory bilateral agreement was executed between the Management of BILT Graphic Paper Products Limited Unit, Sewa and the Workmen represented by different Unions before the Conciliation Officer-cum-Deputy Labour Commissioner, Jeypore. The Petitioner-Union challenged the agreement, alleging non-compliance with a previous court order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the bilateral settlement was binding on both the employer and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The court emphasized the sanctity of settlements reached with the assistance of the Conciliation Officer and held that such settlements are binding on all parties to the industrial dispute.
Issues: The issues revolved around the binding nature of the bilateral settlement, the compliance with the previous court order, and the initiation of contempt proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Section 18(1) and Section 18(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, emphasizing the binding nature of settlements reached with the assistance of the Conciliation Officer and the sanctity of such settlements.
Final Decision: The court held that no contempt proceedings could be initiated against the contemnor since the bilateral settlement had already received the seal of approval by the parties, and there was no reason to interfere with its sanctity.
ORDER
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. It transpires that a statutory bilateral agreement dated 30th of May, 2017 stood executed between the Management of BILT Graphic Paper Products Limited Unit, Sewa and the Workmen represented by different Unions before the Conciliation Officer-cum- Deputy Labour Commissioner, Jeypore in the conciliation proceeding under Section 12(3) read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
3. The present Petitioner-Union claiming itself to be the true representative of the Workmen and filed W.P.(C) No.20176 of 2017 challenging the aforesaid bilateral agreement dated 30th of May, 2017. This Court vide order dated 21st of November, 2017 disposed of the aforesaid Writ Petition with a direction to the Commissioner to take appropriate steps within a period of six weeks on the application dated 21st of June, 2017 filed by the Petitioner-Union raising the similar grievance as raised in this Writ Petition.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner-Union submits that the contemnor sat over the matter and is not taking steps to comply the order dated 21st of November, 2017 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.20176 of 2017. Hence, this contempt petition .
5. Conciliation proceedings were postulated to put an end to the ongoing disputes between the parties. Upon perusal of the Memorandum of Settlement between the Management of BILT Graphic Paper Products Limited Unit: Sewa and Workmen represented by different Unions dated 30th May, 2017, it is revealed that a bilateral settlement has been secured by the Parties.
6. It is well settled that a settlement of such nature is binding on both the employer and the workmen under section-18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, making the workmen unions bound by the settlement. Once a settlement is arrived at under the said provision, none of the parties can go back on their stance. The hypothesis for the same is to vindicate the inviolability of the settlement reached via the length of the conciliation proceedings and the persuasive skills of the conciliation officer.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court has succinctly emphasised the sanctity of Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in Barauni Refinery Shramik Parishad and Ors v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and Ors:, MANU/SC/0784/1990.
9. ' .It may be seen on a plain reading of Sub- sections (1) and (3) of Section 18 that settlements are divided into two categories, namely, (1) those arrived at outside the conciliation proceedings and (ii) those arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings. A settlement which belongs to the first category has limited application in that it merely binds the parties to the agreement but the settlement belonging to the second category has extended application since it is binding on all parties to the industrial dispute, to all others who were summoned to appear in the conciliation proceedings and to all persons employed in the establishment or part of the establishment, as the case may be, to which the dispute related on the date of the dispute and to all others who joined the establishment thereafter.Therefore, a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings with a recognised majority union will be binding on all workmen of the establishment, even those who belong to the minority union which had objected to the same. To that extent it departs from the ordinary law of contract. The object obviously is to uphold the sanctity of settlements reached with the active assistance of the Conciliation Officer and to discourage an individual employee or a minority union from scuttling the settlement.There is an underlying assumption that a settlement reached with the help of the Conciliation Officer must be fair and reasonable and can, therefore, safely be made binding not only on the workmen belonging to the union signing the settlement but also on others. That is why a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings is put on par wi
