GLAXO LABORATORIES INDIA LTD Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CALICUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main question of law that has been raised in this writ petition by the petitioner, Glaxo Laboratories ( India)Ltd. , Ernakulam, is whether a notice terminating an agreement issued before the expiry of the period of operation of the agreement would satisfy the requirement under sub-s. (2) of S. 19 of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV of 1947), hereinafter referred to as the Act, which reads as follows: "such settlement shall be binding for such period as is agreed upon by the parties, and if no such period is agreed upon, for a period of six months, from the date on which the memorandum of settlement is signed by the parties to the dispute and shall continue to be binding on the parties after the expiry of the period aforesaid until the expiry of two months from the date on which a notice in writing of an intention to terminate the settlement is given by one of the parties to the other party or parties to the settlement. " It also arises for consideration whether one of the parties to the agreement could by conduct waive the right to notice under S. 19 (2 ).

(2.) THE petitioner and the 2nd respondent, Workmen of glaxo Laboratories ( India )Ltd. represented by the Glaxo Laboratories Staff Union, Ernakulam, entered into an agreement, Ext P-2, dated 29th April 1968 and that agreement with respect to service conditions was to be in force till 31st December 1971. On November 1971 the Secretary of the 2nd respondent Union sent Ext. Ml notice to the petitioner; and the material portion of the said notice reads as follows: - "as directed by the General Body, I am forwarding the Resolution passed at the meeting held on 22nd November 1971. Please take this as the notice to terminate the existing settlement. " In the resolution attached to Ext. M-1 notice, towards the end it is stated as follows: " this General Body meeting held on 22nd November 1971 as the firs: step, decided to terminate the slid settlement as per sub-clause (2) of S. 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and hereby give notice to terminate the said settlement. " Ext. M-2 dated 15th December 1971 is the reply to Ext. M-1 sent by the petitioner. It is stated, inter alia, in Ext. M-2 as follows: - "in the absence of any mention of the specific date, the date of termination of the settlement shall be the date of the notice itself, i. e. , 23rd November 1971. Clause. 21 of the settlement specifically states that the settlement shall be binding on both the parties for a period including and up to to 31st December 1971 and shall thereafter continue to be in force and binding until terminated by either party, as provided under S. 19 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently, the Union is precluded from terminating the settlement during the period when the settlement is in operation. " THEreafter Ext. M-3 letter dated 21st December 1971 was sent by the 2nd respondent Union ; and that was in the form of a clarification of the contents of Ext. M-1 notice dated 23rd November 1971. In the penultimate paragraph of Ext. M-3 what has been stated is as follows: - "it is rather misconstrued to state that the Union has not specified the date of termination of the settlement. We reiterate that the notice to terminate the settlement has been served on Management on 23rd november, and the agreement shall stand terminated two month's from the date of serving this notice. It is needless to clarify that two months from the date of serving notice can only be a date after 31st December 1971, as such it is baseless to state that the Union is precluded from terminating the settlement during the period when the settlement is in operation. Since the agreement will stand terminated on 23rd January 1972. and that we have already submitted our Charter of Demands on 1st December, 1971 , we shall be glad if you will take early steps for negotiation of the settlement" This was followed by Ext. M-4 letter dated 7th January 1972 , sent by the petitioner, wherein the management contended as follows: "it will, therefore, be seen that your notice dated 23rd November, 1971 , terminating the settlement before the expiry of its contractual period is in breach of the law as. well as the provisions of the settlement. " ' Subsequently, in the concluding portion of Ext. M-5 letter dated 10th January 1972 written by the 2nd respondent Union , it is stated as follows: "we once again like to mention that by serving the notice of terminating the settlement on 23rd November 1971 , we accept that the terms of the settlement is binding on both the parties, not only up to 31st December, 1971 but up to 23rd January 1972. " A period of inaction seems to have followed till by Ext. R-1 letter dated 26th July 1972 the 2nd respondent enquired of the petitioner as to when the management intended to negotiate with the Union regarding the charter of Demands already submitted. Ext. R-2 is the reply sent by the petitioner to Ext. R-1. In Ext. R-2 it is stated, inter alia, as follows: "we sincerely hope you will bear with us for some time and that before long we will be able to enter into negotiations with you &quot ; In the concluding paragraph it is also stated: "we must strongly urge you therefore that when the negotiations are held you must realistically examine the position and that these will not be based on the Charter of Demands as submitted" In Ext. R-11 which is a letter dated 15th December 1972 written by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent, it is stated, inter alia, as follows: "and perhaps, you would kindly bear in mind that in terms of the proposals for the new settlement, for the Ernakulam Depot likely to be concluded soon, the number of holidays will be 10, including National holidays. " Ext. R-10 is another letter written by the petitioner on 29th December 1972 to the 2nd respondent, wherein it is stated as follows: "very soon our Depot Settlement will also be taken up with very good hopes of early settlement " Ext. R-4 is the copy of letter No. B-10998/71, dated 21st February 1973 from the District Labour Officer, Alwaye, intimating the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent that a joint conference of the parties was to be held at 10 a. m. on 2nd March 1973 in the District Labour Office. Ext. R-5 is a copy of the proposal for settlement received from the petitioner by the second respondent Union Ext. R-8 is a copy of the letter sent by the 2nd respondent to the District Labour Officer, Alwaye, on 14th April 1973 intimating him that the mutual discussions with the management held on 9th april 1973 at Madras had failed and requesting him for the resumption of conciliation. Ext. R-9 is a copy of the letter dated 23rd May 1974 written by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent Union granting leave to two of its workers for attending the negotiations held in Madras from 1st to 3rd April, 1974.

(3.) THERE is no need of scope for importing the idea that to satisfy the requirements of S. 19 (2) of the Act notice terminating the agreement should always be after the expiry of the period of operation of the settlement or agreement in force. On a careful analysis of the sub-section, in my opinion, the requirements for termination of an agreement in force shall stand fulfilled if the following conditions are satisfied. (i ) issue of a notice in writing; (ii) conveyance , through the notice, of a clear intention to terminate the agreement; (iii) the termination of the agreement shall be on a date after the expiry of the period of operation agreed upon; and (iv)a period of two months elapses between the date of the issue of notice and the date of termination of the agreement.