RAP MFRS EMPLOYEES WELFARE UNION, REP. BY GENERAL MANAGER, MR. MUTHUSAMY Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR, SALEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Union seeks to propagate the case of two of the employees in respect of the dispute with the Management / the second respondent. There has been chequered history to the industrial relationship between the workers' union and the management and a memorandum of settlement was executed on 22.04.1997. But, apparently, this could not resolve the disputes, as there were even contract labourers engaged for the factory of the second respondent and some employees were dismissed on 03.03.2000. The Labour Officer, Krishnagiri, took up this matter which was followed up by Thiru. A. Ramalingam, the then Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, taking up the conciliation proceedings. On 11.09.2000, a settlement was arrived at between the management and the workmen and it would be necessary to reproduce the relevant portion of the terms of settlement to appreciate the controversy as under:

(2.) 14 workmen against whom domestic enquiry are conducted as per Clause 10 of the terms and conditions of the 12 (3) Settlement dated 24.97, the findings along with the copy of the enquiry proceedings to all the workmen will be submitted before Thiru A.Ramalingam, Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, for his decision with regard to the punishment as an arbitrator. The decision of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem is final and both the parties agreed that the decision will be binding on both the parties. The decision will be given on or before 31st Oct., 2000.''

(3.) The aforesaid Award was assailed in W.P.No.5831 of 2003 and in the course of proceedings, one of the issues which came up was as to the consequence of the agreement for reference to the Arbitrator not being published in the Official Gazette in terms of Sec. 10-A (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The plea raised was that the Award was consequently null and void. The factum of non-publication was not disputed. In view of certain conflicting decisions, this issue was referred to a Full Bench. In terms of the order dated 21.04.2006 of the Full Bench (reported in 2006 (3) CTC 399), this reference was answered and it was opined that an Award under Sec. 10-A of the said Act, which is rendered invalid due to non-compliance of the requirement of Sec. 10-A (3) of the said Act cannot be enforced by the parties as an award in private arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Arbitration Act'). This plea was raised as an endeavour by the Management to canvass a case that even if the agreement was not notified, that can be considered as an Award under the Arbitration Act.