Leather Karamchari Sanghatan Vs. Liberty Footwear Company & Ors  INSC
260 (31 August 1989)
K.J. (J) Shetty, K.J. (J) Ahmadi, A.M. (J)
1990 AIR 247 1989 SCR (3)1065 1989 SCC (4) 448 JT 1989 (3) 537 1989 SCALE
Disputes Act 1947--Sub-section 3 of Section 10A-Publication of the arbitration
Agreement in the Gazette--Whether obligatory or directory and non-publication
thereof--Whether renders the award invalid and unenforceable--Delay in
publication--Effect of-Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1967--Rule 7.
No. 1 is a registered partnership firm which deals in leather foot wears at Karnal
in Haryana and at other places under the name and style of "Liberty
Footwear Company". It had an industrial dispute with his workmen; the latters'
Union complaining that the management had
terminated the services of more than 200 workmen. The management asserted that
the persons whose services had been terminated were not its employees at the
material time. The dispute having remained unsealed, the workmen went on strike
as a result whereof the management had to lay off certain workers. The
agitation of the workers in front of the factory created a law and order
problem and the police had to intervene in the matter. With a view to bring
about a settlement, the official authorities such as Labour Commissioner, Labour
and Public Health Minister and other. Concerned officials all came and extended
their good officers. They succeeded in their efforts and on March 31, 1988, the parties entered into an
agreement containing the terms of settlement of their dispute. It was agreed
between them that a committee consisting of five persons, two from the
management and two from the workmen's union, with the Deputy Commissioner Karnal,
as the President should be constituted, as arbitrators, to determine the
dispute. The Committee gave its award on 29.4.1988 and 11.5.1988 directing the
management to reinstate in all 159 workers. The management did not implement
the award by reinstating the workmen but instead challenged the validity of the
award by means of a Writ Petition before the High Court. The management inter alia
contended before the High Court that (i) the committee procedural
irregularities; (ii) that the committee did not afford opportunity to the
management to produce evidence and (iii) that the arbitration agreement was not
published in the official Gazette as required by 1066 Sub-section (3) of
Section 10A of the Act and thus the award made without such publication was bad
and invalid. The High Court without going into other contentions accepted the
Writ Petition only on the ground of non-publication of the agreement in the
Gazette. It held that the requirement of Subsection 3 of Section 10A is
mandatory and its non-compliance would vitiate the award. It accordingly
directed the State Government to publish the agreement in the Gazette and also
directed the committee to determine the dispute afresh and pass the award after
the publication of the agreement.
employees' Union has preferred this appeal after
obtaining Special Leave. In the meanwhile the management had preferred Letters
Patent Appeal against certain directions of the Single Judge of the High Court
which is impugned in this appeal and the State Government has referred the
dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Ambala, under section 10(1) of the Act for
of the appeal with directions this Court,
At both the places viz, in Sub-section (3) and Rule 7 of the Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1967, it may be noted that the legislature has used the word
context in which the word has been, there is, little doubt about obligation to
publish the agreement in the official Gazette. [1075F] It is now well established
that the wordings of any provision are not determinative as to whether it is
absolute or directory. Even the absence of penal provision for noncompliance
does not lead to an inference that it is only directory. The Court, therefore,
must carefully get into the underlying idea and ascertain the purpose to be
achieved notwithstanding the text of the provision. [i076D] The Act seeks to
achieve social justice on the basis of collective bargaining. Collective
bargaining is a technique by, which dispute as to conditions of employment is
resolved amicably by agreement rather than coercion. The dispute is settled
peacefully and voluntarily although reluctantly between labour and management.
The voluntary arbitration is a part of infrastructure of dispensation of
justice in the industrial adjudication. The arbitrator thus fails within the
rainbow of statutory tribunals when a dispute is referred to arbitration it is
therefore necessary that the workers must be made aware of the dispute as well
us the arbitrator whose award would ultimately bind them. They must know what
is referred to arbitration, who is their arbitrator, and 1067 what is in store
for them. They must have an opportunity to share their views with each other
and if necessary to place the same before the arbitrator. This is the need for
collective bargaining and there cannot be collective bargaining without
involving the workers. The Union only
helps the workers in resolving their disputes with management but ultimately it
would be for the workers to take decision and suggest remedies. The arbitration
agreement must therefore be published before the arbitrator considers the
merits of the dispute. Non-compliance of this requirement would be fatal to the
arbital award. [1076F-1077B] In the modern, welfare state, healthy industrial
relations are a matter of paramount importance. In attempting to solve
industrial disputes, industrial adjudication, therefore, should not be delayed.
Voluntary arbitration appears to be the best method for settlement of industrial
The Court, therefore, gave the following directions:
The State Government shall publish condition No. '3' in the arbitration
agreement in the Government Gazette within four weeks from to-day; (ii) The
agreement containing condition No. '3' stands referred to the Industrial
Tribunal, Haryana at Ambala for passing arbitration award in accordance with
law (iii) The reference made under section 10(1) of the Act to Industrial
Tribunal is quashed and (iv) The management shall withdraw the aforesaid
Letters Patent Appeal and the Writ Petition pending in the High Court within 3
weeks from to-day failing which the High Court shall dispose them of as having
become infructuous. [1078DF] Romington Rand
of India Ltd. v. The Workmen,  I SCR 164; Modern Stores v. Krishna das, AIR 1970 NIP 17;
Engineering and Fondary Works, Phillaur. v. The Punjab State & Ors.,  Lab. I.C. 52;
Mineral Industry Association v. The Union of India & Anr., AIR 1971 Delhi
160; Rasbehary Mohanty and Presiding Officer Labour Court & Anr.,  II
LLJ Orissa 222 to 226; Workmen of Woodlands Hotel v. K. Srinivasa Rao, 
Vol. 42 F.J.R. 223 at 226;
Cotton Mills Ltd. v. District Labour Officer & Ors.,  1 LLJ Kerala
417 at 419, referred to.
APPELLATE JURISDiCTION: Civil Appeal No. 1765 of 1989.
From the Judgment and order dated 1.6.1988 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P.
No. 4046 of 1988.
for the Appellants.
V. Ram Swarup, S.K. Bagga, S.R. Srivastava and Ms. Anu Mohala for the
Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. This appeal by
leave from a decision of the single Judge of Punjab & Haryana High Court
raises a very short but important question of law relating to the validity of
an arbitral award made before publishing the arbitration agreement under the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (The 'Act').
facts which give rise to this appeal may briefly be stated thus.
respondent-1 is a registered partnership firm carrying on its trading
activities in leather footwears at Karnal and some other places under the name
and style of 'Liberty Footwear Company'. It has its head office at Karnal in
the State of Haryana. It had a serious dispute with the workers.
workers' union complained that the management has illegally terminated more
than 200 workers. The respondent denied that claim and asserted that the
persons whose services were alleged to have been terminated were not its
employees at the material time. This dispute however, remained unsettled and
the workers went on strike which took a violent turn. The management had to lay
off certain workers and that added fuel to the fire. The agitation of the
workers before the factory premises created law and order problem attracting
the police to intervene. The Labour Commissioner and other top officials of the
District arrived and they initiated conciliation proceedings. The then Labour
Minister and the Public Health Minister of the State Government were also
alerted. They also came and extended their good offices to bring about a
settlement. They succeeded in their efforts. On March 31, 1988, the parties entered into an agreement containing the terms
of settlement of their dispute. On behalf of the management, the agreement was
signed by respondents 1, 7 and 8. On behalf of the workers, it was signed by
the President and Secretary of the workers' union. It was mutually agreed that
a committee consisting of five persons, two from the management and two from
the union with the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal as the President 1069 should be
constituted. They would be the arbitrators to determine the said dispute.
committee of arbitrators was accordingly constituted. The Committee gave its
award on April 29, 1988 and May 11, 1988 directing the management to reinstate in all 159 workmen.
This was the beginning of another dispute which led to frustrated litigation.
The management did not reinstate the workers. It challenged the validity of the
award by way of writ petition in the High Court. The award was challenged in
the first place on procedural irregularity committed by the Committee of
arbitrators. It was, inter alia, contended that the Deputy Commissioner did not
participate in the entire proceedings and during his absence the administrator
Municipal Committee Karnal held the enquiry. It was also alleged that the
Committee did not afford opportunity to the management to produce evidence.
Secondly, it was claimed that the arbitration agreement was not published in
the official Gazette as required under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 10A of the Act and
the award made without such publication would be invalid. The learned single
judge of the High Court who considered the matter did not examine all the
contentions urged by the management. He, however, accepted the writ petition
only on the effect of non-publication of the agreement in the Gazette. He
expressed the view that the requirement of the sub-sec. (3) is mandatory and
its non-compliance would vitiate the award. With this conclusion he quashed the
award and directed the State Government to publish the agreement in the
Gazette. He also directed the Committee to determine the dispute afresh and
pass an award after publication of the agreement.
employees' union without preferring Letters Patent Appeal before the High Court
against the judgment of learned single judge has directly appealed to this
Court by obtaining special leave. Ordinarily, we would have revoked the leave
since the party has not exhausted the remedy available by way of appeal. But in
view of the importance of the question raised and the need to decide it
promptly in the interest of industrial adjudication, we proceed to consider the
appeal on merits.
principal question that arises for consideration is whether non-publication of
the arbitration agreement as required under subsec. (3) of sec. 10-A, renders
the arbitral award invalid and unenforceable? Before outlining the statutory
provisions having a bearing on the question, we may call attention to the
relevant terms of the arbitration agreement.
"1. xxx xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
of alleged more than 200 terminated workers the workers doing the work of
cutting and sking are taken back with immediate effect and about the reinstatement
of the remaining workers a committee is constituted. In the Committee two
members namely S/Shri Ishwar and Ram Badan will represent the workers and S/Shri
Sunil Bansal and Mohan Lal Wadhwa will be the representatves of the Management.
The Deputy Commissioner, Karnal would be the President of the Committee. This
Committee will decide this matter that out of those alleged more than 200
workers whose services have been terminated how many and who are workers of
Liberty Group. The workers found to be of the Liberty Group would resume work
with immediate effect. The Committee will take decision in this behalf upto 26th April, 1988. In order to ascertain as to which
of the workers worked in which factory of the Liberty Group, the President
shall have the right to adopt any procedure or method and the decision given by
him shall be binding on both the parties." The parties entered into the
above agreement and referred the dispute for arbitration under sec. 10-A of the
Act. Section 10-A is, therefore, important and must be set out in full:
Voluntary reference of disputes to arbitration-(1) Where any industrial dispute
exists or is apprehended and the employer and the workmen agree to refer the
dispute to arbitration, they may, at any time before the dispute has been
referred under sec. 10 to a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal, by a
written agreement, refer the dispute to arbitration and the reference shall be
to such person or persons (including the presiding officer of a Labour Court or
Tribunal or National Tribunal) as an arbitrator or arbitrators as may be
specified in the arbitration agreement.
where an arbitration agreement provides for a reference to the dispute to an
even number of arbitrators, the 1071 agreement shall provide for the
appointment of another person as umpire who shall enter upon the reference, if
the arbitrators are equally divided in their opinion, and the award of the
umpire shall prevail and shall be deemed to be the arbitration award for the
purpose of this Act.
arbitration agreement referred to in sub-sec. (1) shall be in such form and
shall be signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed.
copy of the arbitration agreement shall be forwarded to the appropriate
Government and the conciliation officer and the appropriate Government shall,
within (one month) from the date of the receipt of such copy, publish the same
in the Official Gazette.
Where an industrial dispute has been referred to arbitration and the appropriate
Government is satisfied that the persons making the reference represent the
majority of each party, the appropriate Government may, within the time
referred to in sub-sec. (3), issue a notification in such manner as may be
prescribed; and when any such notification is issued, the employers and workmen
who are not parties to the arbitration agreement but are concerned in the
dispute, shall be given an opportunity of presenting their case before the
arbitrator or arbitrators.
The arbitrator or arbitrators shall investigate the dispute and submit to the
appropriate Government the arbitration award signed by the arbitrator or all
the arbitrators, as the case may be.
Where an industrial dispute has been referred to arbitration and a notification
has been issued under sub-sec. 3(a), the appropriate Government may, by order,
prohibit the continuance of any strike or lock out in connection with such
dispute which may be in existence on the date of the reference." It may be
noted that Sec. 10-A excluding sub-secs. l-A, 3-A and 4-A have been added to
the parent Act by Act No. 36 of 1956. After about eight years, sub-secs. l-A,
3-A and 4-A came to be added by the amending Act No. 36 of 1964.
Consequent upon the additions of these provisions, several corresponding
changes were also made in the other provisions of the Act. Section 2(b) which
defines an award was amended by the addition of the words "it includes an
arbitration award made under sec. 10-A". As a result of this amendment of
the definition an arbitration award has now become an award for all purposes of
the Act attracting the application of secs. 17, 17-A, 18(2), 19(3), 21, 29, 30,
33-C and 36-A of the Act.
be noted that secs. 23 and 24 as originally stood provided power to the appropriate
government to prohibit strikes and lock-outs, but they could not be invoked in
relation to proceedings before the arbitrator. So these sections were also
amended to bring them in harmony with sub-secs. (3-A) and (4-A) of sec. 10-A.
The Government could now by order prohibit continuance of any strike or
lock-out in connection with a dispute referred to arbitration and in respect of
which a notification has been issued under subsec. 3-A.
(4) of sec. 10-A empowers the arbitrator to investigate and adjudicate upon the
industrial dispute referred to him under the arbitration agreement. He shall
submit an award signed by him. If there are more than one arbitrator, all of
them must sign the award. The award shall be submitted to the appropriate Government.
It is also to be published like any other award under the Act in accordance
with the provisions of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 17. Section 17-A provides that an
award (including an arbitration award) shall become enforceable on the expiry
of 30 days from the date of its publication. Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 18 makes an
arbitration award which has become enforceable, binding on the parties to the
agreement. Sub-section (3) of sec. 18 goes a step further. In a case where
notification has been issued under sub-sec. (3-A) of sec. 10-A, the arbitration
award would be binding on all parties to the dispute as well as on all other
persons summoned to appear in the proceedings as parties to the dispute. Such
an award will also bind the successors or assigns of the employer and all
present and future workmen employed in the establishment.
completeness of the picture we may refer to the rules framed by the Central
Government under sec. 38(2)(aa).
rules make provision for the form of arbitration agreement, the place and time
of hearing and the powers of the arbitrator to take evidence. Rule 7 of the
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 which is relevant for our purpose
"7. Arbitration Agreement--An arbitration agreement for the reference of
an industrial dispute to an arbitrator or arbitrators shall be made in Form C
and shall be delivered personally or forwarded by registered post to the
Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour (in triplicate),
the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi and the Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central) concerned. The agreement shall be accompanied by the
consent, in writing, of the arbitrator or arbitrators." In the light of
these statutory provisions, it is now necessary to consider whether publication
of the arbitration agreement is obligatory and if so, when it should be
published? To put the question more precisely; whether it is necessary to
publish the agreement within the time prescribed under sub-section (3) of sec.
10-A? And what would be the consequences of delayed publication? Arguments
before us ranged a good deal wider than they appear to have done in the High
Court. The counsel for the appellant claimed that the publication in the
Gazette is only for general information and not a condition precedent for
making the award. When parties have voluntarily agreed and referred their
problem to arbitration and also participated in the award proceedings, mere
non-publication of the agreement cannot render the award invalid. Such a view,
counsel asserted, would defeat the very purpose of industrial adjudication by
consent of parties. He also urged that penal consequence for nonpublication of
the agreement since not prescribed, the requirement of publication is only
directory and not mandatory. He finally rounded off his submission by stating
that the publication of the agreement is necessary, but the period specified
under sub-section(3) is only directory.
examining these contentions, it will be useful to have a brief survey of the
authorities referred to us at the Bar. In Remington Rand of India Ltd. v. The
Workmen,  1 SCR 164, the question arose whether the award published after
the lapse of 30 days as specified in sec. 17(1) would become invalid for
non-publication within the prescribed time. Mitter, J., speaking for a Bench of
this Court held that though sec. 17(1) makes it obligatory on the Government to
publish the award, the time limit of 30 days prescribed therein, however, is
merely directory and not mandatory. The learned judge observed:
"The limit of time has been fixed as showing that the publication of the
award ought not to be held up. But the fixation of the period of 30 days
mentioned therein does not mean that the publication beyond that time will render
the award invalid. It is not difficult to think of circumstances when the
publication of the award within thirty days may not be possible. For instance,
there may be a strike in the press or there may be any other good and
sufficient cause by reason of which the publication could not be made within
were to hold that the award would, therefore, be rendered invalid, it would be
attaching undue importance to a provision not in the mind of the legislature.
It is well known that it very often takes a long period of time for the
reference to be concluded and the award to be made. If the award becomes
invalid merely on the ground of publication after thirty days, it might entail
a fresh reference with needless harassment to the parties. The non-publication
of the award within the period of thirty days does not entail any penalty and
this is another consideration which has to be kept in mind." A Division
Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Modern Stores v. Krishna das, AIR 1970 MP
17 took the view that the publication or arbitration agreement in the gazette
is obligatory, that is, a sine qua non, but the requirement of time
"within one month" is only directory and not imperative. There the
management entered into an arbitration agreement with respect to a dispute with
the Union on January 22, 1968. It was referred to the Presiding Officer of the Labour
Court, Jabalpur for arbitration. An award was made on March 8, 1968 but it was
not pronounced until April 15, 1968, for want of publication of the agreement
under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 10-A. The agreement was published in the Gazette on
March 29, 1968. The Court however, quashed the award with a direction to the
Presiding Officer Labour Court to read judicate the dispute referred under sec.
10-A of the Act.
similar view was expressed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Landara
Engineering and Foundary Works, Phillaur v. The Punjab State and Others, 
Lab. I.C. 52.
Delhi High Court in Mineral Industry Association v. The Union of India and
Another, AIR 1971 Deihi 160 has also accepted the same principle but by simply
following the decision of the M.P. High Court in Modern Stores case.
The Orissa High Court in Rasbehary Mohanty and Presiding Officer Labour Court
and Anr.,  (II) LLJ Orissa 222 at 226 has held that if the arbitration
agreement is not published as required under sub-sec. (3), it would be an
infraction of the statutory provisions in the matter of reference to the
arbitrator and in the making of an award.
High Court since called the Karnataka High Court in Workmen of Woodlands Hotel
v. K. Srinivsa Rao,  Vol. 42 F.J.R. 223 at 226 has observed that an award
of the arbitration under sub-section. (4) cannot be regarded as valid if the
agreement for arbitration is not published as prescribed under sub-sec. (3).
High Court in Kathyee Cotton Mills Ltd. v. District Labour Officer and Ors.,
 1 LLJ Kerala 417 at 419 has expressed the view that the requirements of
sub-sec. (3) are mandatory and a failure to comply with the provisions would
vitiate the award.
foregoing authorities of the High Courts do not indicate the reasons in support
of the views expressed. But the reasons in our opinion, are not far to seek,
and are immanent in the importance of provisions of sub-section (3) and the
object underlying there under. We may read sub-section (3) along with Rule 7.
Rule 7 states that the arbitration agreement shall be made in form C and
delivered personally or forwarded by registered post to the Secretary to the
Ministry of Labour and Chief Labour Commissioner etc. It shall be accompanied
by the consent, in writing, of the arbitrator or arbitrators. Sub-section (3)
also requires that a copy of the agreement shall be forwarded to the appropriate
government and the appropriate government shall, within one month from the date
of receipt of such copy publish it in the Official Gazette. At both the places
it may be noted that the legislature has used the word "shall".
context in which this word has been used, there is, in our opinion, little
doubt about obligation to publish the agreement in the Official Gazette.
Counsel for the appellant also did not dispute this proposition.
next question for consideration is whether it should be imperative to publish
the agreement within the period of one month as prescribed under sub-section
(3). This is indeed not an easy question for solution.
"That it is impossible to lay down any general rule for determining
whether a provision is imperative or directory." [Maxwell on the
Interpretation of Statutes 12th Ed. p. 3 14].
however, gives us some guidelines:
a statute is passed for the purpose of enabling something to be done, and
prescribes the formalities which are to attend its performance, those
prescribed formalities which are essential to the validity of the thing when
done are called imperative or absolute;
those which are not essential, and may be disregarded without invalidating the
thing to be done, are called directory." Craeis on Statute Law 5th Ed. p.
now well established that the wording of any provision are not determinative as
to whether it is absolute or directory. Even the absence of penal provision for
noncompliance does not lead to an inference that it is only directory. The
Court, therefore, must carefully get into the underlying idea and ascertain the
purpose to be achieved notwithstanding the text of the provision.
look at the provisions of sub-section (3). It is with respect to time for
publication of the agreement. But publication appears to be not necessary for
validity of the agreement. The agreement becomes binding and enforceable as
soon as it is entered into by the parties. Publication is also not an
indispensable foundation of jurisdiction of the arbitrator. The jurisdiction of
the arbitrator stems from the agreement and not by its publication in the
Official Gazette. Why then publication is necessary? Is it an idle formality? Far
from it. It would be wrong to construe subsection (3) in the manner suggested
by counsel for the appellant. The Act seeks to achieve social justice on the
basis of collective bargaining. Collective bargaining is a technique by which
dispute as to conditions of employment is resolved amicably by agreement rather
than coercion. The dispute is settled peacefully and voluntarily although
reluctantly between labour and management. The voluntary arbitration is a part
of infrastructure of dispensation of justice in the industrial adjudication.
The arbitrator thus falls within the rainbow of statutory tribunals. When a
dispute is referred to arbitration, it is therefore, necessary that the workers
must be made aware of the dispute as well as the arbitrator whose award
ultimately would bind them. They must know what is referred to arbitration, who
is 1077 their arbitrator and what is in store for them. They must have an
opportunity to share their views with each Other had if necessary to place the
same before the arbitrator. This is the need for collective bargaining and
there cannot be collective bargaining without involving the workers. The Union
only helps the workers in resolving their disputes with management but
ultimately it would be for the workers to take decision and suggest remedies;
it seems to us, therefore, that the arbitration agreement must be published
before the arbitrator considers the merits of the dispute.
Of this requirement would be fatal to the arbitral award.
takes us to the nature of the relief to be granted in this appeal. The High
Court has directed the State to pUbliSh the arbitration agreement in the
further directed the Committee of arbitrators to determine the dispute only
after its publication. But there are certain problems in this case to pursue
that course. The Deputy Commissioner who was the Chairman of the Committee of
arbitrators has since resigned.'it appears that he wants to run away from his
responsibility. The State Government has created a fresh problem. Under section
10(1) of the Act, the State Government has referred the dispute to the
Industrial Tribunal, Ambala, for adjudication. That dispute relates to
termination of 150 employees whose reinstatement was the subject matter of the
arbitration agreement. There is yet another problem from the side of the
management. Against the judgment of the learned single judge giving certain
directions, the management has preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 511 of 1988
before a Division Bench of the High Court and obtained stay of the directions.
Not merely that, the management has also challenged the reference made by the
State Government under section 10(1) of the Act. It has moved the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution with CWP No. 9455 of 1988 and obtained stay
of further proceedings before the Tribunal.
must be recognised that in the modern welfare state, healthy industrial
relations are a matter of paramount importance. In attempting to solve
industrial disputes, industrial adjudication, therefore, should not be delayed.
arbitration appears to be the best method for settlement of industrial
disputes. The disputes can be resolved speedily and in less than a year,
typically in a few months. The Tribunal adjudication of reference under section
10(1) often drags on for several years, thus defeating the very purpose of the
industrial adjudication. Arbitration is also cheaper than litigation with less
legal work and no motion practice. It has limited document discovery with 1078
quicker hearing and less formal than trials. The greatest advantage of
arbitration is that there is no right of appeal, review or writ petition.
Besides, it may, as well reduce company's litigation costs and its potential
exposure to ruinous liability apart from redeeming the workmen from
is with regard to advantages of voluntary arbitration. There is another aspect
which was perhaps not realised by the State Government when it referred the
dispute under section 10(1). Section 10 and 10-A of the Act are the alternative
remedies to settle an industrial dispute. An industrial dispute can either be
referred to an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication under section 10, or the
parties can enter into an arbitration agreement and refer it to an arbitrator
under section 10-A. But once the parties have chosen their remedy under section
10-A the Government cannot refer that dispute for adjudication under section
10. The said reference made by the Government under section 10(1) cannot,
therefore, be sustained.
these prefatory observations w.e" make the following directions:
The State Government shall publish condition No. '3' in the arbitration
agreement in the Government Gazette within four weeks from today.
The agreement containing condition No. '3' stands referred to the Industrial
Tribunal, Haryana at Ambala for passing arbitration award in accordance with
The reference made under section 10(1) of the Act to the Industrial Tribunal is
The management shall withdraw the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal and the Writ
Petition pending in the High Court within three weeks from today failing which
the High Court shall dispose them of as having become infructuous.
of this judgment shall be transmitted forthwith to the Industrial Tribunal Haryana
at Ambala. The Tribunal after affording opportunity to parties to produce
evidence of their choice and also opportunity cross examine each other shall
dispose of the matter expeditiously, and at any rate not later than six months
from the date of first appearance of parties. The parties shall appear before
the Tribunal on 15th
September, 1989 to
receive further direction.
appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.