POONA MAZOOR SABHA Vs. G K DHUTIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition raises a rather important question with regard to conciliation proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act. It appears that there was a dispute between the second opponent company and its workers with regard to wages, dear-ness allowance, leave facilities etc. and on 30-1-1955 a meeting of the workers was called where one Mahadik was authorised by his co-workers to make representations to the second opponent company with regard to their demands. The second opponent company wanted to negotiate with the workers who had a representative capacity and therefore the Government Labour Officer was approached to hold a meeting at which representatives of the workers would be elected under his supervision. Accordingly a meeting was-held on 17-3-1955 at which five workmen were elected by the workers present to be their representatives. On 7-4-1955 the second opponent company and the elected representatives of the workers wrote a letter to the conciliation officer to the effect that they had come to a negotiated agreement in regard to the demand relating to wages, dearness allowance and leave facilities and that they desired to sign a memorandum of settlement before him. Accordingly on 11-4-1955 both the parties appeared before the conciliation officer, the first opponent, and produced before him a draft agreement. This draft agreement was considered by the conciliation officer and he explained to the elected representatives of the workers in Marathi the various terms of the agreement, the agreement having been drafted in English. There was considerable discussion Over each clause of the agreement and one of the terms was modified by the conciliation officer and the parties appearing before him approved of this modification. The whole discussion lasted about an hour. The conciliation officer then adjourned the proceedings, advising the elected representatives to consult the other workers and their advisers before coming to a final decision in the matter. The elected representatives then saw the first opponent in the afternoon and approved of the draft agreement as was modified. Thereupon a memo settlement was prepared in the prescribed form and was signed by the parties. On 1-4-1955 the petitioner Union was formed and it was registered on 1-6-1955, and on 23-6-1955 the Union made certain demands upon the second opponent company, which demands were the subject matter of the settlement already arrived at. As the employer company, the second opponent, was not prepared to concede these demands, the petitioner approached the first opponent to initiate conciliation proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act. The first opponent refused to do so on the ground that there was a subsisting settlement arrived at between the parties and so long as that settlement continued he had no jurisdiction to initiate conciliation proceedings under the Act. It may be pointed out that the duration of the settlement as mentioned in the settlement itself was five years. The view taken by the first opponent was that the settlement was binding upon the parties for the period mentioned in the settlement and so long as the settlement was binding it was not open to him to initiate conciliation proceedings under the Act. The petitioner has come before us on this petition for a writ of mandamus against the first opponent to compel him to perform his statutory duty and to initiate conciliation proceedings under Section 12.

(2.) IT has been very forcefully argued by Mr. Bhandare on behalf of the petitioner that the settlement between the parties had already been arrived at before the parties approached the conciliation officer, and according to him the conciliation officer had no jurisdiction to record the settlement which he did on 11-4-1955. For this purpose attention is drawn to Section 12 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of that section provides:

(3.) IN our opinion, what we have to consider is: When does an industrial dispute cease to exist from the point of view of industrial law? In this case, admittedly there was an industrial dispute. Can it be said that the industrial dispute has ended because the parties to the dispute have come to a private agreement? The object of the Indus rial Disputes Act is to bring about Industrial peace and there is no industrial peace unless there is an agreement between the contending par-ties which is binding upon them and which they are bound to respect in law. The only settlement between the parties which is binding is the settlement arrived at through the instrumentality of the conciliation officer. That is clear from the provisions of Section 19 (3 ). It is only that settlement upon which the law has put its imprimatur and to which the law has given sanctity and which the law has made binding. Industrial law takes no notice of any private settlement or agreement arrived at between the parties in the course of an industrial dispute. Such r private agreement belongs to the realm of contract; it may give rise to contractual rights; but then we are dealing with Industrial law it has no sanction whatsoever, and therefore in the eye of the industrial law, in our opinion, an industrial dispute does not end until a settlement is arrived at, which settlement has been given a binding effect under the provisions of Section 19 (2), and such a settlement can only be arrived at when conciliation proceedings are held under Section 12. Therefore, it would not be true to say that the industrial dispute ended with the settlement arrived at between the parties on 7-4-1955, that the conciliation officer had no jurisdiction to record the settlement, and that in raising another dispute in June 1955, the Union was raising a dispute which was not and could not be the subject matter of a settlement contemplated by Section 12 and Section 19 (2 ).