MOHANAKUMARAN NAIR Vs. HINDUSTAN LATEX LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE basic question posed in both these Original petitions is the same and hence disposal of one will in effect be disposal of the other. Facts in the second O. P. alone are sufficient in this judgment.

(2.) A settlement was signed by leaders of most of the trade unions representing the employees of the Hindustan Latex Ltd. , Trivandrum (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') and the management of the Company in proceedings initiated by the District Labour Officer, as Conciliation Officer. A copy of that settlement is Ext. P5. The Company prepared and published a seniority list of casual workers pursuant to Ext. P5 and issued a notice calling for objections on the criteria adopted in preparing the seniority list. Ext. P6 is the notice issued by the General Manager of the Company calling for such objections. The direction prayed for in the Original Petition is to quash Exts. P5 and P6.

(3.) "settlement" is defined in S. 2 (p) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It reads thus: "settlement" means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent to (an officer authorised in this behalf by) the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer". It consists of two categories. The first consists of settlements arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings. The second consists of written agreements between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceedings. Ext. PS purports to be one falling under the first category. There is no contention from either side about the second category mentioned. S. 12 and 18 of the Act are the two other sections dealing with settlement. Under S. 12, the Conciliation Officer is given the power to hold conciliation proceedings where any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. Sub-s. (2) shows that he has a duty to make a serious endeavour to bring about an amicable settlement of the dispute. He must investigate the dispute and take into account all matters affecting the merits and a right settlement thereof, and may do all such things as he thinks fit for the purpose of inducing the parties to come to a fair and amicable settlement of the dispute. If he succeeds in arriving at a settlement he is required to send a report together with a memorandum of settlement "signed by the parties to the dispute". That requirement is embodied in sub-s. (3 ). But it may not be possible for him to succeed in all cases. K be does not succeed, he is required under sub-s. (4) to send a full report to the Government setting forth all the steps taken by him and also the reasons for the failure to arrive at a settlement. Such a report is intended to enable the Government to make a reference of the dispute to the authorities mentioned in sub-s. (5) If he succeeds in getting the dispute settled as between the disputants, the next step which he has to take is to prepare a memorandum of the settlement and get the signature of the parties to the dispute thereto. Such a settlement shall be binding on "all patties to the industrial dispute". This is the purport of S. 18 (3 ). If a disputant is not willing to abide by the suggestions or terms evolved in the conciliation proceedings, it cannot be said that a settlement has been arrived at even if some among the disputants are agreeable to those suggestions or terms. The word "settlement" itself postulates concurrence from the disputing parties. Industrial dispute can be any dispute or difference between one set of workmen and another set of workmen in an industry. The definition of "industrial dispute" in S. 2 (k) of the Act shows that it need not necessarily be a dispute between employer and workmen. It may be that very often the industrial dispute is a dispute between the employer and his workmen. But it happens, though rarely, that the dispute is between two sets of employees in the same establishment. If the dispute is as between the employer and the workmen a settlement reached in conciliation proceedings between some only of the workmen and their employer is a settlement under the Act having extended application to the other workmen also. But, when the dispute is between some of the workmen on the one part and some other workmen on the other part, can there be a settlement of that dispute without the concurrence of those workmen? It would be illogical to call it a settlement when the disputing workmen do not agree to the terms acceptable to the other set of workmen. Any such settlement unilaterally made between the employer and one faction of the workmen cannot have the legal incidences envisaged in the act, if the dispute is actually between two factions of workmen in the same establishment. If one faction of workmen in such a dispute persists in refusing to concur with the terms acceptable to the other faction, the Conciliation Officer may report to the Government as provided in S. 12 (4) of the Act. If the Conciliation officer proceeds to make a memorandum of settlement signed by the employer and representatives of one faction of the employees in such a dispute, the document cannot be called a settlement under law.