Bopanna, J. - (1.) This Writ Petition completes the triology of cases between the Petitioner/Union and the Cement Manufacturers' Association (the 2nd respondent herein) and the Indian National Cement and Allied Workers Federation (the 4th respondent herein). The petitioner had approached this Court earlier in the year 1978 in Writ Petition No. 7008 of 1981. But, this Court did not grant the reliefs prayed for since the petitioner had approached this Court at a belated stage. The petitioner approached this Court again in Writ Petition No. 6346 of 1982 challenging the validity of the Notification made by the Central Government under Section 10A(3A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) as also the award made by the Arbitrators chosen by the 2nd respondent and the 4th respondent respectively on the demands raised by the 4th respondent. This Court by its Order dated 6-7-1984 quashed the Notification impugned therein and issued a Writ in the nature of mandamus to the Central Government to consider the Charter of Demands raised by the petitioner and take a decision as to the expediency of referring the same to adjudication under the Act. This Court also made it clear in the said order that the award made by the arbitrators under the impugned Notification in that petition would not be binding on the petitioner, but only on the workmen represented by the 4th respondent/Federation. This order is now pending in appeal before the Division Bench, W.A. No. 1480 of 1984 and respondent No. 2 has obtained an order of stay from the Division Bench. The circumstances under which the earlier Writ Petitions were filed may be briefly stated :
(2.) It is not in dispute that the petitioner/Union is affiliated to the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) which represents the workmen of several industries in India in the organised sector. Likewise the 4th respondent is affiliated to Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC) which also represents a large number of workmen in various industtries in India in the organised sector. Though, primarily the object of both the petitioner and the 4th respondent is the betterment of the working conditions of the workmen employed in the organised sector, ideologically there appears to be some differences of opinion between them as to how these objects should be achieved in the larger interests of the workmen in this Country. By going through the material on record in the earlier Writ Petitions, it could be said that one time during the period 1977-78 the petitioner appeared to have the majority of workers employed in the Cement Industry as its members. But, thereafter, the 4th respondent stalked its claim as the representative Union of the workmen employed in the Cement industry and on the basis of its claim a Notification was issued referring the dispute raised by the 4th respondent for voluntary arbitration in the manner prescribed under Section 10A(1) of the Act, The Notification referring the demands to Arbitration was made by the Central Government some time in the year 1978 and that Notification was challenged by the petitioner in the second Writ Petition filed by it.
(3.) The award made by the Arbitrators in the reference under Section 10A(1) of the Act came to an end by notices of termination by petitioner and Respondent-4. Thereafter both petitioner and the 4th respondent submitted their respective charter of demands to the 2nd respondent. Both these demands were not accepted by the employer, i.e. the 2nd respondent, and, therefore, both these Unions gave strike notices as required under Section 22 of the Act, since it was obligatory to give such notices to the 2nd respondent in view of the fact that Cement Industry is a 'Public Utility Service' by virtue of the Notification issued by the Central Government under the relevant provisions of the Act. After the receipt of the strike notices the Conciliation Officer i.e., Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Bangalore, admitted the matter in conciliation as he was bound to do so under the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Act. But, since similar disputes arose for conciliation in other States where other Cement Industries are located, conciliation proceedings were transferred to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) in Bombay. Petitioner was informed by the 2nd respondent that their charter of demands would be discussed in Bombay as is evident from the telegram dated 26-8-1985 which is produced as Annexure-N in the Writ Petition. A further telegram was sent on 15-9-1986 stating that the 2nd respondent would be willing to meet the representatives of the petitioner in Bombay. It is not in dispute that the representatives of the petitioner met the members of Industrial Relations Sub-Committee of the 2nd respondent on 18-9-1986. That was the first meeting which the petitioner's representative had with respondent No. 2 after the charter of demands was submitted on 27-6-1986, and after the strike notice was given by some of the Unions affiliated to the petitioner/Federation. In the said meeting on 19-8-1986 petitioner was informed by the 2nd respondent that they had entered into a voluntary arbitration agreement with the 4th respondent (copy of the arbitration agreement is produced as Annexure-P in the Writ Petition). Consequent on this agreement, the strike notice given by the 4th respondent was withdrawn presumably because the workmen represented by the 4th respondent were prepared for voluntary arbitration of the disputes referred to two arbitrators - one nominated by the 4th respondent and the other nominated by the 2nd respondent. These arbitrators, it should be noticed, are not independent arbitrators but persons representing the INTUC and the Cement Industry. G. Ramanujam who is nominated by the 4th respondent is admittedly the President of INTUC whereas A.L. Kapoor is one of the employers in the Cement Industry and a member of respondent-2 Association. The grievance of the petitioner is that they were taken by surprise by the sudden developments during the conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Bombay in that the 2nd respondent having called upon the petitioner to meet them in Bombay for the settlement of the demands raised by the petitioner should not have entered into an Arbitration Agreement with the 4th respondent under the provisions of Section 10A(1) of the Act. Their further grievance is that these arbitrators are interested persons in that Sri Kapoor being an employer in the Cement Industry would be interested in safeguarding the interest of the employer and Sri Ramanujam being the President of the INTUC to which the 4th respondent is affiliated would be interested in safeguarding the interests of the 4th respondent who belongs to the rival political group in the trade union organisation in this Country, that the petitioner had also raised a demand for some interim, relief during the pendency of the consideration of the charter of demands raised by them and by this agreement between the 2nd respondent and the 4th respondent the claim for interim relief had been effectively scotched. According to the petitioner, such an agreement behind the back of the petitioner and without its consent is wholly opposed to the mandatory requirement of the 2nd proviso to Section 10(1) of the Act and, therefore, that agreement between the 2nd respondent and the 4th respondent being a private agreement, does not have the sanction of law and the Notification which the Union Government proposes to publish in the Official Gazette in exercise of its powers under Section 10A(3A) of the Act would be also without jurisdiction, illegal and would be detrimental to the interests of a large number of workers represented by the petitioner/Union. The petitioner has also alleged that its experience with voluntary arbitration consisting of the nominees of the 2nd respondent and the 4th respondent is not very happy since 1977, since in its view, they are not independent arbitrators who could objectively consider the disputes raised by the 4th respondent and the demands raised by the petitioner/ Union would be given a go bye by this voluntary agreement between the 2nd respondent and the 4th respondent.;