KERALA MINERALS EMPLOYEES CONGRESS Vs. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second respondent company and its employees represented by four trade unions, respondents 3, 4, 6 and 7 entered into conciliation settlement on 16-7-1978. Its term expired on 30-6-1981. Four trade unions submitted separate charters of demands in July, 1981. Negotiations between the management and the union having failed, the first respondent, Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Trivandrum was requested to intervene to effectuate settlement. First respondent held conciliation conferences in June and July, 1982 which led to fresh conciliation settlement on 24-7-1982, a copy of the Memorandum of settlement being Ext. R2-A. Petitioner is a new trade union formed in 1979 and claims loyalty of majority of the employees of the second respondent. Under Ext. P1 the second respondent was informed about the formation of the petitioner union. On 3-7-1981 the Union forwarded to the 3rd respondent a memorandum alleged to have been signed by the employees of the second respondent and claiming right to represent those employees in all conferences. Petitioner trade union was not consulted by the management and was not invited to the conciliation talks and was not a party to Ext. R2A settlement. After settlement, the union under Ext. P3 protested to the Central Labour Commissioner, without any avail. The union has therefore filed this original petition under Art.226 of the Constitution for declaration that Ext. R.2A agreement is not valid and binding on the union and its members and for the issue of a writ of mandamus d retting the first respondent to take back the dispute to his file and to dispose of the same in accordance with S.12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') with the participation of the petitioner union and for a disposal of Ext. P3, representation expeditiously. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, pressed only the relief of declaration that Ext. R2A settlement is not binding on the petitioner union and its members or in the alternative for a direction to the first respondent to hold de novo, conciliation proceedings with the participation of the petitioner.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that under S.18(3) of the Act, any conciliation settlement entered into between the management and any one or more of the trade unions will be binding on all the workers including the workers not belonging to the unions which are parties to the settlement, and also binding on union which is not a party to the agreement and therefore, petitioner union and its members will be bound by Ext. R2A, According to him, it was, therefore, mandatory on the part of the first respondent to have invited the petitioner union and ensure petitioner's participation also in the conciliation talks and since that was not done, the agreement or settlement is invalid and not binding on the petitioner union and its members. Reliance is placed on the decisions reported in Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Company Ltd. v. Jatin Chakravorty and others ((1961) (1) LLJ 244) (SC); Padmanabhan Menon and others v. Indian Aluminium Company Ltd. and others ( 1968 (2) LLJ 225 ) and M. R. Workmen v. Labour Commissioner ( 1967 KLT 35 ).

(3.) Settlements between management and the workers represented by the trade unions could be of two kinds. There could be settlement after direct negotiations and without the aid of conciliation machinery created under the Act. There could also be settlement brought about with the aid of such conciliation machinery. These two kinds of settlements are dealt with in S.18 of the Act.