ADAMJI M BADRI Vs. LABOUR OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a Cinema Exhibitor at Bharoch. During the first six months of 1975, he had employed 15 workmen. On 20th September, 1974, Surat Jilla Cinema Karmachari Mandal submitted to the petitioner charter of demands on behalf of the petitioner's workmen. The demands included the revision of wages, casual leave, sick leave and such other things. The petitioner negotiated with the union and the workmen and a settlement was reached on 7th March, 1975. It was signed by both the parties. Under the terms of that settlement, wages of the workmen were revised, gratuity under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, was agreed to, payment of bonus was agreed to and casual leave with right to accumulate it was also agreed to. It was a private settlement. A copy of that settlement was sent to Labour Officer and Conciliation Officer. Under S. 2 (p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it was sent for registration. On 21st December, 1976, Akhil Gujarat Kamdar Association served upon the petitioner a notice on behalf of the petitioner's workmen and demanded revision of wages, dearness allowance and other things. On 23rd April, 1977, all workmen employed by the petitioner resigned from Akhil Gujarat Karmachari Union and withdrew their demands. The workmen informed the Labour Officer and the petitioner accordingly. However, the petitioner gave further benefits to the workmen and those benefits were incorporated in the supplementary settlement arrived at between the parties on 30th May, 1977. The two settlements - one dated 7th March, 1975 and another dated 30th April, 1977 - were stipulated to remain in force until 21st March, 1982. Copies of the subsequent settlement were sent to the Labour Officer. Assistant Commissioner of Labour and Secretary to the Education and Labour Department, Government of Gujarat. On 18th June, 1977, the Government called for the original settlement. The petitioner sent it to the Government. The settlement dated 30th April, 1977 was signed by all workmen. It was registered and returned to the petitioner.

(2.) ON 13th September, 1977. Bharoach District Cinema Employees Union respondent No. 2 served upon the petitioner a strike notice under S. 22 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The union also made fresh demands. The union stated that if fresh demands were not granted by the petitioner, the workmen would go on strike. The petitioner in reply pleaded that there was in force a binding settlement within the meaning of S. 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that it was to remain in force for five years, that is to say, until 31st March, 1982. The petitioner, therefore contended that since that settlement was subsisting and was in force, no demand on behalf of the workmen could be made. By letter dated 5th October, 1977, Government Labour Officer and Conciliation Officer respondent No. 1 called the parties to a preliminary discussion on 26th October, 1977 in this behalf. On 26th October, 1977, the petitioner submitted written contentions to respondent No. 1. He, inter alia, contended that the binding settlement within the meaning of S. 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act had been in force by virtue of the provisions of S. 19 (2) of that Act and that it could not be terminated during its subsistence. He also terminated during its subsistence. He also contained that it could not be a subject-matter of industrial dispute. Therefore, according to him, the notice served on behalf of the workmen was illegal and inoperative. On 11th January, 1978, the union withdrew the notice dated 13th September, 1977 and, therefore, the conciliation proceedings were closed. However, on the same day, the union served upon the petitioner notice terminating the settlement dated 30th May, 1977. On 7th March, 1978, the petitioner replied to it and raised the same contentions which he had raised earlier. On 30th March, 1978, a fresh charter of demands was presented by the workmen to the petitioner. On 3rd April, 1978, the petitioner gave reply to the workmen's demands. By notice dated 15th April, 1978, respondent No. 1 called the parties for a preliminary discussion on 29th April, 1978, The petitioner filed his written submissions. He, inter alia, contended that respondent No. 1 had no authority to intimate the negotiations and that he could not admit the workmen's demands to conciliation. According to him, respondent No. 1 could not do so because the settlement dated 30th May, 1977 was binding upon the parties. However, respondent No. 1 admitted the workmen's demands to conciliation by notice dated 8th June, 1978.

(3.) THE petitioner has, therefore, filled this petition in which he challenges the jurisdiction of the conciliation officer to admit the demands to conciliation. On behalf of the workmen, it is contended that the settlement dated 30th April, 1977 was obtained by the petitioner from them under force and fraud. The question, therefore, which has been raised for our consideration in this petition is as follows :