Ameteep Machine Tools Vs. Labour Court
Haryana & ANR [1980] INSC 185 (22 September 1980)
PATHAK, R.S.
PATHAK, R.S.
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
CITATION: 1980 AIR 2135 1981 SCC (1) 768
ACT:
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, section 36,
scope of.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant company manufactures machine
tools at its factory in Faridabad employing 250 workmen including the second
respondent, Sadhu Singh. Demands of the workmen for an improvement in the
conditions of the service led to conciliation proceedings and a settlement
under s. 12 was recorded on June 20, 1969 by the Conciliation officer. The
settlement included a provision that the workmen would not raise any demand
involving further financial burden on the appellant for a period of two years.
Before the expiry of that period, however, a fresh demand was raised on August
17, 1970 by the General Labour Union asking for dearness allowance at 25 per
cent. The management having refused this demand the workmen resorted to a
"sit down" strike on August 26 and 27, 1970. The second respondent
Sadhu Singh was charged with alleging serious misconduct. Sadhu Singh did not
participate in the inquiry. Accepting the report submitted by the Inquiry officer
that Sadhu Singh was guilty of instigating the workmen to go on strike the
services of Sadhu Singh were terminated by the management with immediate effect
by an order dated September 14, 1970. The management dismissed some other
workmen also. The dismissal of all workmen formed the subject of another
settlement under s. 12 of the Act dated November 21, 1970 and it was agreed
that the dismissed workmen including Sadhu Singh should be regarded as
retrenched from service. The remaining workmen agreed to resume work
unconditionally. Sadhu Singh, took up the matter before the Labour Court
stating that not being a signatory to the settlement of November 21, 1970 he
was not bound by it. The Labour court accepted his plea and made its ward on
September 30, 1972. It found that the domestic inquiry was not proper inasmuch
as notice of the inquiry had failed to reach Sadhu Singh, thereby preventing
him from participating in the domestic inquiry. Further it held that since
Sadhu Singh had been ill from August 24, to September 9, 1970 he could not be
said to have instigated the strike.
The appellant having failed before the High
Court has come in appeal after obtaining special leave from this Court.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court,
HELD: Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes
Act provides for representation of the parties to a dispute. The workmen are
entitled by virtue of sub-section (1) to be represented in a proceeding under
the Act by a member of the executive or other office bearer of a registered
trade union of which 769 they are members or of a federation of trade unions to
which that trade union is affiliated, and where the workmen is not a member of
any trade union, he can be represented by a member of the executive or other
office bearer of a trade union connected with, or by any other workman employed
in the industry in which the workmen is employed. It is not obligatory,
however, that a workman who is a party to a dispute must be represented by another.
He may participate in the proceeding himself. Where conciliation proceedings
are taken and a settlement is reached, it is a valid settlement and binding on
the parties even if the workmen who are party to the dispute participate in the
proceedings personally and are not represented by any of the persons mentioned
in s. 36(1) of the Act. In the present case; (1) by executing a memorandum the
several workmen who individually signed it on 21st August, 1970 bound
themselves by the terms of the settlement, but as Sadhu Singh had not signed
the memorandum nor had he authorised any of the workman to sign the memorandum
on his behalf he was not bound by the settlement. (2) The settlement of 21st
November, 1970 can on no account be understood as covering and concluding the
demand for recalling the order dismissing Sadhu Singh, as his reinstatement was
never included in the charter of demands of the workmen which led to the
conciliation proceedings and those proceedings did not involve the
consideration of such a demand. In the circumstances, it was open to Sadhu
Singh to assail his dismissal from service and to contend that the settlement
of 21st November 1970 did not bind him. (3) The Labour Court was right in
adjudicating on the propriety of his dismissal and, having found that the
dismissal was not justified, in granting relief. [771 F-772E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 785 of 1975.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and
order dated 7-1-1973 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No.
6677/74.
A. K. Sen, S. K. Gambhir, A. K. Panda and
Miss Ramrakhiani for the Appellant.
Yogeshwar Prasad, A. K. Srivastava and Miss
Rani Chhabra for the Respondent No. 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PATHAK, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana summarily dismissing a writ petition filed by
the appellant.
The appellant is a private limited company
which manufactures machine tools as its factory in Faridabad. It employs 250
workmen. The second respondent, Sadhu Singh, is one of them. Demands by the
workmen for an improvement in the conditions of their service led to
conciliation proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ("the Act"),
and on June 20, 1969, a settlement under s. 12 of the 770 Act in satisfaction
of those demands was recorded by the Conciliation officer. The settlement
included a provision that the workmen would not raise any demand involving
further financial burden on the appellant for a period of two years. Before the
expiry of that period, however, a fresh demand was raised on August 17, 1970 by
the General Labour Union asking for dearness allowance at 25 per cent.
The management demurred, and explained that
having regard to the structure of wages and allowances now payable under the
settlement, there was no justification for the demand. On August 26, 1970 the
workmen resorted to a "sit down" strike, which continued the next
day. According to the appellant, on August 27, 1970, Sadhu Singh instigated the
workmen to "down" tools and go on a "sit down strike. Successive
notices by the management the same day failed to dissolve the strike. Charges
were framed against Sadhu Singh alleging serious misconduct and a domestic
enquiry was ordered. The workman, it is said, declined to accept the
charge-sheet and, although he was directed to appear before the Inquiry
Officer, Sadhu Singh did not participate in the inquiry. On September 13, 1970,
the Inquiry officer submitted his report to the management. According to him,
the strike was illegal, and Sadhu Singh was guilty of instigating the workmen
to go on strike, and besides he was guilty of loitering in the factory. The
findings being accepted by the management an order followed on September 14,
1970 dismissing Sadhu Singh from service with immediate effect. The President
of the General Labour Union then pressed the management to reinstate Sadhu
Singh. Meanwhile the management had taken action dismissing other workmen also.
The dismissal of all the workmen formed the subject of a settlement under s.12
of the Act on November 21, 1970, and it was agreed that the dismissed workmen,
including Sadhu Singh, should be regarded as retrenched from service. The
remaining workmen agreed to resume work unconditionally. The memorandum of
settlement was signed by the management on the one hand and the individual
workmen on the other. A few days after, Sadhu Singh wrote to the Labour
Commissioner claiming that he was not a signatory to the settlement and that he
would settle his dispute himself with the management. The State Government
referred the dispute in regard to the termination of Sadhu Singh's service for
adjudication to the Labour Court, Rohtak. While the management took its stand
on the facts found in the domestic inquiry report and relied on the
circumstance that the settlement dated November 21, 1970 was binding on Sadhu
Singh, Sadhu Singh asserted that he was not guilty of any misconduct on August
27, 1970. He also contended that the charge sheet had never been served on him
and therefore the exparte domestic inquiry was vitiated. The 771 Labour Court
by its order dated September 20, 1972 found that Sadhu Singh was not a
signatory to the settlement of November 21, 1970, and was, therefore, not bound
by it. The Labour Court made its award on September 30, 1972. It found that the
domestic inquiry was not proper inasmuch as notice of the inquiry had failed to
reach Sadhu Singh because it had been sent to a wrong address, thereby preventing
him from participating in the domestic inquiry. On the merits of the dispute
the Labour Court found that Sadhu Singh had been ill from August 24 to
September 9, 1970, and that was established by a medical certificate which, on
inquiry from the Employees State Insurance Department, was found to be in
order, and consequently it could not be believed that the workman had
instigated or participated in the "tool down" and "sit
down" strike. In support of its case that Sadhu Singh was present within
the factory premises on August 27, 1970, the management placed reliance on a
document purporting to have been signed by the workmen and setting forth the
assurance that he would conduct himself properly and be of good behaviour. The
Labour Court said that if the document be accepted as genuine there was
sufficient reason for accepting the assurance and refraining from taking any
action against the workman. The Labour Court held that the dismissal was not
justified and that Sadhu Singh was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of
previous service and full back wages.
The appellant filed a writ petition in the
High Court against the award, but the writ petition was dismissed. And now this
appeal.
The appellant challenges the findings of the
Labour Court. It is contended that the settlement dated November 21, 1970 was
binding on Sadhu Singh and it was not open to him resile from it. Now Section
36 of the Act provides for representation of the parties to a dispute. The
workmen are entitled by virtue of sub-section (1) to be represented in a
proceeding under the Act by a
member of the executive or other office bearer of a registered trade union of
which they are members or of a federation of trade unions to which that trade
union is affiliated, and where the workman is not a member of any trade union,
he can be represented by a member of the executive or other office bearer of a
trade union connected with, or by any other workman employed in, the industry
in which the workman is employed. It is not obligatory, however, that a workman
who is a Party to dispute must be represented by another. He may participate in
the proceeding himself. Where conciliation proceedings are taken and a
settlement is reached, it is a valid settlement and binding on the parties even
if the workmen who are party to the dispute participate in the 772 proceedings
personally and are not represented by any of the persons mentioned in s. 36(1).
That is what happened here.
The evidence shows that the individual
workmen negotiated the settlement themselves and individually signed the
memorandum off settlement. By executing a memorandum they bound themselves by
the terms of the settlement. In the present case, however, while several
workmen signed the memorandum of settlement on 21st November, 1970, Sadhu Singh
did not. It is also established that Sadhu Singh did not authorise any of the
other workmen to sign the memorandum on his behalf. And what is of importance
is that, as found by the Labour Court, the demand that the dismissal of Sadhu
Singh be set aside and that he should be reinstated was never included in the
charter of demands of the workmen which led to the conciliation proceedings,
and those proceedings did not involve the consideration of such a demand.
According to the Labour Court, that was the admitted position, Consequently,
the settlement of 21st November, 1970 can on no account be understood as covering
and concluding the demand for recalling the order dismissing Sadhu Singh. In
the circumstances, it was open to Sadhu Singh to assail his dismissal from
service and to contend that the settlement of 21st November, 1970 did not bind
him.
The Labour Court was right in adjudicating on
the propriety of his dismissal and, having found that the dismissal was not
justified, in granting relief.
It is submitted that notice of the domestic
inquiry was duly effected on Sadhu Singh and the finding of the Labour Court to
the contrary is erroneous. Plainly, the question turns on the evidence on the
record and we see no reason why the finding of the Labour Court should not be
accepted.
Having reached the conclusion that the
domestic inquiry, in the circumstances, was improper it was open to the Labour
Court to enter into the dispute on its merits and pronounce its award. The
finding that Sadhu Singh was ill and could not be said to have instigated or
participated in the strike on August 27, 1970 is a finding of fact which
proceeds from the material on the record. We are not satisfied that the finding
should be disturbed.
Considerable reliance was placed by the
appellant on the document said to have been executed by the workman containing
the assurance that he would be of good behaviour and, it is submitted.
773 that after executing the document Sadhu
Singh went back on the assurance and set the strike in motion. We see no force
in the submission. The evidence led by the management attempts to show
specifically that Sadhu Singh instigated the strike at 10 O'clock in the morning on August 27, 1970.
It would not be unreasonable to hold that the
declaration of assurance was executed subsequently. It was an assurance
accepted by the management, and, therefore, there is no reason why the
management should have insisted on initiating disciplinary proceedings
thereafter against the workman.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed with
costs to the second respondent, which we assess at Rs. 2,000. The appellant has
deposited that sum pursuant to the order of this Court dated April 30, 1974, and it is open to the second respondent to withdraw the money.
V. D. K. Appeal dismissed.
Back
