ASSOCIATION OF CHEMICAL WORKERS Vs. WAHID ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Workmen of the respondent No. 2 concern-hereinafter referred to as the "employer" are represented by the petitioner No. 1 - Union (Trade Union) and also by the respondent No. 3 - Union (another Trade Union). Till 1st of November, 1977 a settlement dated 10-9-1974 reached between the respondent No. 3 - union and the employer was in operation. Respondent No. 3 terminated the said settlement by a notice dated 1st November, 1977, while the petitioner terminated the same by a notice dated 31st December, 1977. Respondent No. 3 served a fresh charter of demands on the employer on 2nd February, 1978 while the petitioner No. 1 served their charter of demands on 2nd January, 1978.

(2.) The respondent No. 1 is the conciliation officer duly appointed under S. 4 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - hereinafter referred to as the "Act". On being apprised of the disputes between the employer and the employees of this concern, a meeting between the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 1 was held on 7th March, 1978. There was then another meeting between them on 14th March, 1968 at which respondents 2 and 3 also were present. Justification statements in respect of their demands appear to have been filed at this meeting. At the meeting held on 3rd April, 1978, respondent No. 1 indicated as to which of the demands made by petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3, were being admitted by him for conciliation. A notice in writing to that effect was served by him both on the petitioner as well as on the respondent 2 and

(3.) The respondent No. 1 had meetings with the employer respondent No. 2 and the petitioner on 14th April and then on 17th April, 1978 at which respondent No. 1 tried to explore the possibilities of settlement. The meeting was then adjourned to 24th of April, 1978. On 17th April itself respondent No. 1 had meeting with respondent Nos. 2 and 3. He appears to have fruitful meetings with them then and on the following days. This resulted in a settlement between respondent No. 3 union and the employer respondent No. 2. The same was signed on 22nd April, 1978. This also was countersigned by the respondent No. 1 as the conciliation officer. The meeting scheduled between the petitioner No. 1, respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 1, could not be held on 24th April as respondent No. 1 was held up in connection with this official work at Kalyan. The same was, however, held on 25th April, 1978. At this meeting, respondent No. 1 suggested that petitioner also should accept the settlement on the same lines on which the respondent No. 3 has settled it with regard to the points admitted for conciliation. The respondent No. 1 gave a copy of his recommendations, as also a copy of the settlement dated 22nd April, 1978. He, however, did not furnish the petitioner with the copy of the recitals though the petitioner's representative was permitted to take note of the same. The meeting was then adjourned to 2nd May, 1978 to enable the petitioner No. 1 to consider the same. 3. In the meanwhile respondent No. 3 notified on the notice board of the company, the terms of settlement. The news papers dated 27th April, 1978 carried a news how the settlement between respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 was signed in the presence of the Chief Minister on 25th April, 1978. They carried a photo of the said ceremony. On 29th April the petitioner No. 1 protested to respondent No. 1 in writing against what they considered to be his objectionable conduct suggesting that the settlement was brought about behind their back in breach of the legal provisions in disregard of the interest of the workmen and indicating their unwillingness to sign the same. On 2nd May the petitioners filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the settlement and claiming a declaration that it was not reached in the course of conciliation proceedings and was not binding on them and also requested this Court to restrain the respondents from acting on it as settlement.