HINDUSTAN INSECTICIDES LTD. Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN interesting question has been raised in this original petition by the Hindustan Insecticides Limited, which figured as a party in Industrial Dispute No. 49 of 1973 before the Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode. Exhibit P2 is the order of reference of the Government to the Tribunal. The parties to the reference were the Hindustan Insecticides Limited and its workmen represented by two unions, the Hindustan Insecticides Limited Workers' Union, and the Hindustan Insecticides Employees' Union. These unions are respectively respondents 2 and 3 in this petition. It appears that even prior to the order of reference the management had reached an understanding with the 3rd respondent -union which according to the management represents the majority of workmen and a settlement had been reached on 13 -3 -1973. Pursuant to this Ext. P 9 notice was put up on the notice board on 12 -5 -1973 intimating the workmen that they may receive payments in accordance with such settlement. It is said that such payments were made on 18 -5 -1973. It is nearly 4 months thereafter that the order of reference was made by the Government. Admittedly it was the 3rd respondent -union that was party to the agreement with the management. The agreement was not one reached in any conciliation. Under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, an agreement would be binding on the parties to it. That would mean that the workers who were not parties to the agreement would not be bound by the settlement reached between the petitioner -company and the 3rd respondent -union. But the stand taken by the management before the Tribunal was that there was no subsisting industrial dispute in view of the settlement reached prior to the reference. The Tribunal was moved to here this question as a preliminary issue and the management evidently reserved its right to file statement on the merits. This was objected to by the second respondent which claimed that it represented majority of the workmen, that it was not bound by the settlement reached between the 3rd respondent -union and the petitioner -management and that, therefore, the Industrial Dispute subsisted. It too had raised a charter of demands and those demands led to the industrial dispute.

(2.) EVIDENTLY the answer of the management as well as the 3rd respondent -union to the absence of junction of the second respondent -union in the settlement was that it was nevertheless binding upon all the unions since on Ext. P9 notice which particularly made mention of the agreement dated 13 -3 -1973 payment was received by all the workmen which would mean that even the workmen represented by the second respondent -union had willingly received the payment. It appears that on the facts there could be no dispute as to the receipt of benefit under the settlement reached between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent union by all the workmen. But the case of the second respondent is that a large number of workmen received such payment only as an interim measure in satisfaction of the demands urged. In other words the case was that there was ho acceptance of the terms of the settlement.

(3.) THE Tribunal by its order which is under challenge here held that at that stage preliminary issue could not be decided, for, it called for evidence. It also found that the preliminary point had to be found against the petitioner. Evidently there is some error in the order as pointed out by the petitioner's counsel. Reference is made to certain declarations. It is assumed that those declarations by the workmen related to the settlement reached in March, 1973 between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent -union. As a matter of fact they are not. Exhibits P14 and P15 are specimen copies of such declarations and they show that the declarations relate to some ad hoc payment. But the circumstance does not vitiate the order to the extent of inviting interference by this Court. Essentially the point that had to be decided was whether the workmen who were not parties to the settlement reached between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent -union were bound by the settlement. If they were not, the Industrial dispute subsisted and adjudication was called for. If they were bound there was no industrial dispute and, therefore, the reference was incompetent.