SWADESHI COTTON MILLS THOZHILALAR SHEMA NALA PADUKAPPU UNION Vs. NATIONAL TEXTILES CORPORATION LIMITED NEW DELHI THE AUTHORISED AGENT OF M/S SWADESHI COTTON MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Swadeshi Cotton Mills Tozhilalar Shemanala Padukappu Union, represented by its President, the petitioner in W. P. No. 2756 of 1981, is the appellant in this writ appeal. The respondents herein are the respondents in the writ petition. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in this judgment as they stood arrayed in the writ petition. A dispute arose in 1979 between the second respondent Mills, hereinafter referred to as the Mills, and its workmen on the question of bonus for the year 1978-79. The Mills had paid an advance bonus at 20 per cent, of the earnings to its workmen. A settlement was reached in the course of conciliation on 18th November, 1980 under section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act XIV of 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act, under which it was agreed that the bonus could be only at 12 per cent and the Mills were conferred the right to recover the excess of bonus paid in advance. This settlement was arrived at before the third respondent. At the time of the settlement the petitioner was not even formed. To this settlement over 20 unions, representing the workmen of the Mills, were parties. This, settlement is not being accepted by the petitioner and the petitioner has chosen to challenge the same by filing the writ petition with a prayer for the issue of a writ of mandamus restraining respondents 1 to 3 from effecting recovery of the bonus paid for the year 1978-79 in enforcement of this settlement dated 18th November, 1980. The writ petition was heard by Padmanabban, J. Before the learned Judge, it was urged that the second respondent-Mills is an industry carried on by and under the authority of the Central Government and hence the appropriate Government to appoint the Conciliation Officer is the Central Government and the third respondent, who is admittedly not a Conciliation Officer appointed by the Central Government, was incompetent to conciliate the dispute and as such the settlement arrived at in the course of the conciliation before the third respondent on 18th November, 1980 is null and void and it cannot be enforced against the workmen of the Mills, This contention put forth on behalf of the petitioner was counter-acted by the Mills by stating that the second respondent is not an industry either carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, so that the appropriate Government to appoint the Conciliation Officer could be held to be the Central Government, alone, and, in any event, the settlement, until and unless it is set aside in accordance with law, is binding on all the workers, past and future. Padmanabhan, J., repelled the contentions put forth on behalf of the petitioner and upheld the validity of the settlement dated 18th November, 1980 and as a result, dismissed the writ petition. Hence this writ appeal by the petitioner.

(2.) Before us, the very same contentions that were advanced before the learned single Judge were put forth by Mr. T. Fenn Walter, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. That there was a conciliation before the third respondent in the course of which the settlement dated 16th November, 1980, was arrived at between the Mills and its workmen, represented by various Unions, is not in dispute. Equally so, the fact that at that time the petitioner was not even formed is not in dispute Under section 2 (d) of the Act, Conciliation Officer means a Conciliation Officer appointed under the Act. Section 4 of the Act speaks about the appointment of Conciliation Officers by the appropriate Government. Section 2 (a) (i) of the Act defines appropriate Government in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government ......... as the Central Government. If it is to be held that the Mills is an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government within the meaning of section 2 (a) (i) of the Act, then, the third respondent would be incompetent to conciliate and any settlement arrived at before him cannot legally fit in with section 12 (3) of the Act, since admittedly, he is not a Conciliation Officer appointed by the Central Government. Hence, the moot question is as to whether the Mills is an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government within the meaning of section 2 (a) (i) of the Act.00000000

(3.) A plain reading of the expressions used while defining the appropriate Government in section 2 (a) (i) of the Act would lead us only to one conclusion and that is, the industry should be an undertaking of the Central Government, or, in other words, it should be an industry run by the Central Government as its own. Primarily, there could be a carrying on of an industry only by the person or entity who owns it. Equally so, an industry could be run under the authority of the person or entity who owns it. In the first case, the owner of the industry carries on the same by himself and in the second case, the owner of the industry carries on the same through an authorized person. That is what is meant by the expression under the authority of. Hence, a common sense reading of the expressions leaves no room for ambiguity in our mind that the industry must be owned by the person or the enity, before there could be a carrying on either by the owner or under the authority of the owner. In this connec-tion, we cannot lose-sight of the fact that in respect of an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, it will be equated to an employer, under the Act though for the purpose of representa-ties, it will be the authority prescribed in this behalf or where no authority is prescribed, the head of the department. Hence, in our view, the crucial test must be to find out as to whether the industry is owned by the Central Government, or in other words a Central Government undertaking.