BASANT TALKIES BROACH Vs. GOVT LABOUR OFFICER BROACH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Cinema Exhibitor at Bharuch During the first six months of 1975 he had employed 15 workmen. On 20/09/1974 Surat Jilla Cinema Karmachari Mandal submitted to the petitioner a charter of demands on behalf of the petitioners 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 7/03/1975 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 sec. 2 (p) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 it was sent for registration. On 21/12/1976 Akhil Gujarat Kamdar Association served upon the petitioner a notice on behalf of the petitioners workmen and demanded revision of wages dearness allowance and other things. On 23/04/1977 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 30/05/1977. The two settlements one dated 7/03/1975 and another dated 30/04/1977 were stipulated to remain in force until 31/03/1982. 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 18/06/1977 the Government called for the original settlement. The petitioner sent it to the Government. The settlement dated 30/04/1977 was signed by all workmen. It was registered and returned to the petitioner.

(2.) On 13/09/1977 Bharuch District Cinema Employees Union respondent No. 2 served upon the petitioner a strike notice under sec. 22 (91) 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 sec. 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and that it was to remain in force for five years that is to say until 31/03/1982. 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 5/10/1977 Government Labour Officer and Conciliation Officer respondent No. 1 called the parties to a preliminary discussion on 26/10/1977 in this behalf. On 26/10/1977 the petitioner submitted written contentions to respondent No. 1. He inter alia contended that the binding settlement within the meaning of sec. 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act had been in force by virtue of the provisions of sec. 19 (2) of that Act and that it could not be terminated during its subsistence. He also contended 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 11/01/1978 the Union withdrew the notice dated 13/09/1977 and therefore the conciliation proceedings were closed. However on the same day the Union served upon the petitioner notice terminating the settlement dated 30/05/1977. On 7/03/1978 the petitioner replied to it and raised the same contentions which he had raised earlier. On 30/03/1978 a fresh charter of demands was presented by the workmen to the petitioner. On 3/04/1978 the petitioner gave reply to the workmens demands. By notice dated 15/04/1978 respondent No. 1 called the parties for a preliminary discussion on 29/04/1978. The petitioner filed his written submissions. He inter alia contended that respondent No. 1 had no authority to initiate the negotiations and that he could not admit the workmens demands to conciliation. According to him respondent No. 1 could not do so because the settlement dated 30/05/1977 was binding upon the parties. However respondent No. 1 admitted the workmens demands to conciliation by notice dated 8/06/1978.

(3.) The petitioner has therefore filed 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 30/04/1977 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: Whether the conciliation officer has jurisdiction to admit demands of the workmen to conciliation during the operation of a registered private settlement between the management and workmen which is alleged to be vitiated by exercise of force and perpetration of fraud and which is therefore alleged to be involuntary.