RAMAKRISHNA KULWANTRAI STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. IR WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN respect of payment of bonus for the accounting year that ended with 31-12-1974, a dispute arose between the management of Enfield INdia Limited, Tiruvottiyur and their workmen represented by Enfield Employees' Union and Assistant Commissioner of Labour (conciliation), Madras, held conciliation proceedings. As a result of the conciliation talks the parties arrived at what they termed as a settlement on 28-2-1976. Clause 1 of the said settlement is as follows

(2.) IN the counter-affidavit fixed by the respondent it was contended that since the Asst. Commissioner of Labour acted only as an informal arbitrator and not as an arbitrator with statutory status under S. 10A, no writ will lie against his award. It was also contended that the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 also would not apply as it is an industrial arbitration. When the matter came up for hearing before Mohan, J., the learned Judge considered that because of conflict of decisions on the maintainability of a petition under Art 226 of the Constitution of INdia to quash the award of this nature, it would be desirable that the case is decided by a Full Bench. Accordingly the matter has come before us

(3.) BEFORE us, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not advance any argument that the reference to arbitration was outside S. 10A of the Act and that it was only an informal arbitration which was the original contention that was raised in the affidavit. But he had argued that the arbitrator could have acted and acted only under S. 10A and that, therefore, the writ petition is maintainable. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent that if the reference to arbitration is construed as one under S. 10A the award made thereunder was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In fact, this position is settled, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Rohtas Industries Limited v. Staff Union, We have permitted the learned counsel for the petitioner to raise the contention that the reference to the arbitration was under S. 10A as that is the real question that arises in the writ petition. It may also be mentioned that even in the original affidavit the petitioner had raised a contention that the arbitrator should have insisted upon compliance with the provisions of S. 10A before entering upon his duties. This could only be on the basis that S. 10A was applicable. Therefore, we consider that even in the original affidavit this question was raised, though not in specific and express terms. Therefore, we have to decide the question whether the terms of settlement arrived at before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour during conciliation proceedings on 28-2-1976 which has been settled extracted above, amounts to an agreement to refer the dispute to arbitration within the meaning of S. 10A of the Act