Bopanna, J. - (1.)The validity of the settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) read with Rule 59 of the Rules framed by the State Government under the Act entered into between the fourth Respondent-Management of Motor Industries Co. Ltd., (in short the Management) and the MICO Employees Association purporting to be represented by its President - fifth respondent, viz., F. M. Khan, Member of Parliament, is challenged by petitioners 1 to 6, who are the office bearers of the MICO Employees' Association (in short the Association) represented by its General Secretary, the President, Assistant Secretary, the Executive Committee Member, the Treasurer and a Committee Member respectively.
(2.)The case of the petitioners is that they are the duly elected office-bearers of the Association and they had submitted a charter of demands to the Management for the revision of wags-structure, enhancement of dearness allowance and for providing transport facilities etc., on 14-4-1980 with the sanction of the Special General Body Meeting held on 13-4-1980. Pursuant to this charter of demands, a number of bipartite meetings were held between the petitioners and the Management and certain tripartite Meetings were also held before the second respondent Commissioner of Labour in Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner) in regard to these demands. The Association is the only union of all the workmen employed by the Management but the fifth respondent who was a stranger to the Association and admittedly belongs to the Ruling Party, with the support of the State Government, claimed to be the duly elected President of the Association with the help of his supporters and got up certain documents falsely to contend that he was the elected President of the Association and the impugned settlement was signed by him behind the back of the petitioners and without their knowledge by employing unfair means like using violence in the factory premises and obtaining signatures of some workers at the point of knives. The petitioner had brought to the notice of the Commissioner that the fifth respondent had no representative capacity to represent the Association and accordingly the Commissioner refused to have any conciliation proceedings with the fifth respondent. However, the impugned settlement was entered into in the chambers of the Minister for Labour (in short the Minister) on 23-7-1981 between the Management and the fifth respondent claiming to be the President of the Association. No conciliation proceedings took place on 23-7-1981 before the Minister and even otherwise the Minister was not authorised under the Act and the Rules thereunder to function as a State Conciliation Officer and he had no power to hold conciliation meetings under Section 12(3) of the Act; similarly, the third respondent-Joint Labour Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as the JLC) had no authority to sign the settlement under Section 12(3) of the Act and Rule 59 of the Rules and he also had not applied his mind to the question whether the settlement was just, fair and reasonable; the minutes of the meeting recorded in the chambers of the Minister on 23-7-81 do not disclose that there were conciliation proceedings as required under law and therefore the impugned settlement is not in accordance with law and liable to be quashed. If such settlement is not a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Act, the provisions of Section 18(3) of the Act are not attracted and therefore the petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the settlement is not one made in the course of conciliation proceedings as claimed by the Management. In support of this contention, the petitioners have further averred that albeit the fact that the conciliation proceedings were initiated by the Commissioner, the JLC who had no jurisdiction continued the same in the absence of any order transferring the proceedings to his file and the impugned settlement has ignored certain important demands of the workmen like provision for transport facilities, washing allowance and reinstatement of a number of workmen whose services had been illegally terminated ; certain other demands had been turned down and more important, the impugned settlement strengthens the hands of the Management to impose unilaterally heavy workload on the workmen and to take arbitrary action against them in the name of discipline. Further, the Management having notified in its notice -board that till such time a duly elected team of office-bearers of the Association were elected in accordance with the constitution of the Association and the Trade Unions Act, it would not negotiate with any other persons or group of persons, the petitioners were taken by surprise by the impugned settlement between the Management and the fifth respondent and the action of the Management amounts to unfair labour practice and is also against the spirit of trade union activities and collective bargaining.
(3.)The State Government, the Commissioner and the JLC, who are respondents 1 to 3 respectively, have filed a joint statement of objections. They have stated, inter alia, that joint meetings were also held before the Commissioner and other State Conciliation Officers in the presence of the petitioners and the Management representatives. Regarding the charter of demands dated 14-4-1980, whenever meetings had been held before the officers of the Labour Department, the proceedings of such meetings had been recorded. According to them, respondent-5 was not a stranger to the Association since the Management had notified these respondents that in the General Body Meeting held on 27-4-1981 about 5000 workmen had elected the fifth respondent as the President of the Association after removing the second petitioner from that office. Thereafter, a conciliation meeting was held on 23-7-1981 before the JLC in the Minister's chambers attended by the fifth respondent and the representatives of the Management. After deliberations, the impugned settlement was arrived at and was signed by the Management and the fifth respondent with the help and assistance of the JLC. The JLC, after satisfying himself that the fifth respondent was duly authorised by the majority of the workmen and being satisfied about the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement had subscribed his signature to the same. They have also asserted that all the workmen had received the benefits under the settlement after going through each term of the settlement and that fact speaks about the reasonableness of the settlement. They have denied the allegation that the settlement was brought about to suit the convenience of the Management and the fifth respondent. According to them, the conciliation proceedings could be continued before the JLC because he was also a State Conciliation Officer and he was not compelled to sign the settlement. Regarding some of the demands which were dropped in the settlement, they have contended that' the Management and the fifth respondent negotiated the settlement of various other demands, came to some understanding with the help of the JLC and signed the settlement which was fair and reasonable. According to them, the settlement was one in the course of conciliation proceedings under Section 12(3) of the Act and the JLC certified the settlement on being satisfied that the fifth respondent did represent the Association as President, and the terms of the settlement were also not unfair and unreasonable as contended by the petitioner. Since the third respondent (JLC) was satisfied about the representative capacity of respondent-5, there was no need to give an opportunity to the petitioners to prove their representative capacity before he attested the settlement. Regarding the allegation that the proceedings in the chambers of Minister were not conciliation proceedings, they have stated that those proceedings were held in the Minister's chambers with a view to make use of his good offices in arriving at the settlement and the petitioners also had attended such meetings in the Minister's chambers earlier arid therefore the third respondent does not take the settlement out of the purview of Section 12(3) of the Act. They have also denied all other allegations against the Commissioner and the JLC that they brought about the settlement in order to oblige the Minister and due to extraneous considerations.