J THOMAS AND CO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of our learned brother Chandrasekhara Menon, J. allowing O. P. No. 4826 of 1975 and quashing the order Ext. P-1 dated October 3, 1975 passed by the State Government in purported exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter called the Act) directing that an industrial dispute that was said to exist between the petitioner herein messrs. J. Thomas and Co. (Private) Ltd. and its workmen be referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Calicut.

(2.) IN respect of the matters mentioned in the Annexure to ext. A there was a settlement entered into between the petitioner-Company and the Union represented by the third respondent herein as per the memorandum of settlement evidenced by Ext. P-2 dated august 1, 1972. The terms of that settlement were to be binding on the parties for a period of three years from April 1, 1972 and even thereafter they were to continue to be so binding on them until the expiry of two months from the date of issuance of a notice in writing intimating the intention to terminate the settlement. On April 1, 1975 the third respondent-union issued to the petitioner-Company the notice Ext. P-3 purporting to terminate the settlement evidenced by Ext. P-2. That was later followed up by a memorandum of demands served by the third respondent on the petitioner-Company on may 27, 1975 as per Exts. P-4 and P-4 (a ). It is unnecessary to refer in detail to the other correspondence that passed between the parties and it would suffice to say that the management had also issued a notice to the workmen under Section 9 (a) of the Act proposing to bring about some changes in their conditions of service. On the basis of a letter addressed by the third respondent-union to the District labour Officer. Always as per Ext. R-5 dated June 25, 1975 the said Officer issued a notice to the Management on the same day as per ext. R-6 convening a conference on July 18, 1975 for discussion of the matters arising from the letter sent by the Union. The first of such discussions was held before the District Labour Officer on July 18, 1975 and Ext. R-8 is a copy of the minutes of the said discusion. Subsequently there were further meetings held in the presence of the district Labour Officer on August 7, 1975, August 23, 1975, August 25, 1975 and September 5, 1975. It would appear that on September 5, 1975 the District Labour Officer formed the opinion that the negotiations have failed and it was not possible to arrive at a settlement.

(3.) ON September 15, 1975, 25 out of the 43 members of the petitioner's staff sent to the District Labour Officer a joint letter signed by all of them, with copies to the Management and the third respondent-union, wherein it was stated that the majority of the employees of the petitioner-Company are not members of the third respondent-union, and that they had only just then come to understand that the third respondent-union had placed a memorandum of demands to the management for the revision of the terms and conditions of the service of the employees and that the last conference held by the District Labour Officer on September 5 had ended in failure. In the circumstances the District Labour Officer was requested by that letter to convene another meeting to which the employees sending the letter may also be invited to attend so that in case the third respondent-Association was not prepared to come to a settlement an opportunity may be available to those employees to enter into a settlement with the management in the course of the conciliation proceedings. On September 19, 1975 the petitioner-Company addressed a communication to the District Labour Officer as per Ext. P-6 drawing the letter's attention to the letter sent by the majority of the members of the staff and pointing out that the notice of termination of the earlier settlement which was purported to be given by the third respondent-Association did not meet the requirements of Section 19 (7) of the act, inasmuch as it was clear from the said letter that the Union did not represent the majority of the members of the staff. The petitioner-Company therefore requested the District Labour Officer in ext. P-6 to take the said aspect also into account before proceeding further in the matter. No reply was sent by the District Labour Officer to the petitioner-Company in response to Ext. P-6. On October 3, 1975 the Government passed the Order Ext. P-1 referring the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Calicut.