KRISHAN LAL MEHTA Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this case, Krishan Lal Mehta and Madan Lal Luthra, employed as assistant Manager and Head Booking; Clerk respectively in the cinema-house run by respondent No. 2, have filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying that the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, respondent No.. 1, dated July 23. 1968. made on a dispute raised by them be quashed and the Tribunal be directed to decide the reference on merits.

(2.) Facts leading to this petition stated briefly are that 'on 1st November, 1964, both these petitioners were suspended from service by the employers pending inquiry into certain charges levelled against them. After inquiry, on May 24, 1965, they were dismissed from service and no payment was allowed to them either by way of salary or for the period of suspension. Thereupon they raised an industrial dispute and as it could not otherwise be settled, on April 15, 1967, the Lt. Governor, Delhi, referred the same for decision to the Industrial Tribunal. After inviting statement of claims, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues on the pleadings of the parties :

(3.) By award dated 23rd July. 1968, the Tribunal decided issues 1. 2, 3 and 4 against the managment but under issue No. 5 came to the conclusion that on October 22, 1963. there was a settlement proved as Exhibit M/6 before it between the Motion pictures Association representing the employers of the cinemas in Delhi (including the cinema house of respondent No. 2 where the petitioners were employed) and the Cine Employees' Association (representing the workers) which was binding on the parties. Para 5 of this Settlement, the Tribunal held, provided the mode of settling disputes arising between the-parties through arbitration and till that mode of settling the dispute was exhausted the reference for adjudication to the Tribunal was not maintainable. The reference. Tor this reason, was held to be Barred and the award directed that the petitioners were not entitled to any relief. Shri Madan Mohan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has attacked the award on several grounds. His first and the foremost contention is that para 5 of this Settlement relied upon by the Tribunal did not in law constitute a Settlement within the. meaning' of sub-section (3) of S. 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called "the Act") so as to be binding on the parties and to operate as a bar to the adjudication of the dispute by the Tribunal. The contention has merit and in the view -of the matter that we are taking on this point we consider it unnecessary to go into the other grounds urged by Shri Madan Mohan in support of the relief.