K P HARI, PROPRIETOR, THE UNLIMITED, MADRAS AND CAPITALETTERS MFG (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADRAS Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR, LABOUR WELFARE BOARD BUILDING, D M S COMPOUND, TEYNAMPET, MADRAS AND WORKMEN, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL SECRETARY, MADRAS COMMERCIALAND GENERAL WORKERS UNION, MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are filed to quash the Arbitration Award and Section 12(3) Settlement.

(2.) In the affidavit filed by the petitioners, it is stated that the petitioner company was having its manufacturing unit at Kandanchavady. It was employing nine workmen. The petitioner company was suffering loss and found that there were surplus labour and it retrenched two workmen. Therefore, the workmen indulged in illegal strike from 1.2.1994. Though physically present, the workmen did not do any work. Therefore, the petitioner/employer issued a Circular on 1.2.1994 stating that if they indulge in illegal strike, they would not be paid salary and the management would be forced to close the Unit. Thereafter, an agreement under Section 12(3) of the Act was concluded between the Union and the petitioner herein. According to that, all the demands of the workmen, except the third one, were agreed to be referred to the arbitration. But, subsequently, to that effect notification was not issued by the Government as contemplated under the Act. The Joint Commissioner of Labour who was appointed as Arbitrator considered the issue and passed order. This petition has been filed to quash the order on the ground that neither Section 12(3) settlement, nor the Award was published by the Government till the date of filing of the writ petitions. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Krishnaveni Transports and others v. Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madras and others (1989 II LLJ 245), where this Court has held that publication of the Arbitration Agreement as referred to in Section 10-A(3) of the Industrial Act is mandatory and if it is not complied with, that will vitiate the award. Since the award is binding on all the parties who were not parties to the arbitration, it is necessary to publish the arbitration, so that such persons who are not parties to the agreement can come before the Arbitrator to represent their case. The counsel also referred to another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnal Leather Karamchari Sanghatan v. Liberty Footwear Company , to the same effect.

(3.) In view of the above decisions and in view of the fact that the arbitration award has not been published by the Government, the award as well as Section 12(3) settlement of the Act are unenforceable. Accordingly, the award and the Section 12(3) of the Act are set aside.