Tare C. J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the award, dated 18-9-1972 (Petitioners' Annexure-J), passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur, in Industrial Dispute No. CGIT/LC (R) (10) 69, based on the settlement, dated 31-8-1972 (Petitioners' Annexure-H) arrived at between the representative of the employer and the representatives of the employees as represented by the office-bearers of the fourth respondent, namely, the M. P. Colliery Workers' Federation, through General Secretary.
(2.) AT the time the industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 12-3-1969 (Vide Petitioners' Annexure-A) under section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (Act No. 14 of 1947) for adjudication by the Labour Court, the question referred to the Tribunal was as follows:- ''Whether the management of (1) the New Chirimiri Ponri Hill Colliery, Post Office Chirimiri, and (2) West Chirimiri Colliery, Post Office Chirimiri, having regard to their financial capacity are justified in not paying variable dearness allowance as per the recommendations of the Wage Board for the Coal Industry with effect from the 1st April, 1968 ? If so, what should be the quantum of variable dearness allowance in the above mentioned collieries ?" Sd/- Under Secretary. The petitioners, however, later appeared before the Labour Court and filed an application for being impleaded. The Industrial Court accordingly passed the order, dated 5-7-1972. The order permitted the petitioner Union, namely, M. P. Koyala Panchayat, Khurasia Colliery, to participate in the proceedings from (he stage when the application was made and the petitioners were not permitted to reopen the proceedings that had already taken place. In compliance with that order, the petitioners filed a written-statement (Petitioners' Annexure-G) before the Labour Court objecting to the settlement between the representative of the employer and the fourth respondent, namely, the M. P. Colliery Workers' Federation. Hereinafter the petitioners will be described as the Mazdoor Panchayat and the fourth respondent will be described as Workers Federation. The Labour Court by order, dated 18-9-1972 (Petitioners Annexure-J), which is impugned in the present writ petition, rejected the petitioners' objection and passed an award on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the employer and the Workers Federation. Hence this writ petition by the Mazdoor Panchayat challenging the settlement as also the award. Shri K. K. Adhikari, Dy. Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2, raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the petitioners being interveners in the proceedings before the Labour Court, have no right to file the present writ petition challenging the settlement and the award. The proceedings of the Tribunal show that the petitioners were not mere interveners, but they were impleaded as parties to the proceedings and were permitted to participate from the stage at which the application was made. The petitioners as per the order sheet, dated 18-9-1972 (Petitioners' Annexure-J) were also permitted to raise objection to the settlement arrived at between the employer and the workers Federation. The petitioners were in fact heard on the question as to whether the award on the basis of the settlement should be passed or not. Under the circumstances the contention that the petitioners were mere interveners is not tenable and is obviously contrary to the material on record. In fact, the petitioners were a party to the proceedings as they were impleaded as such. As a result, the preliminary objection raised on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 is over-ruled.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the petitioners were not afforded a proper opportunity to contest the settlement and the award. THE second ground urged was that the award is neither fair nor reasonable and the last ground was that the award based on the settlement is opposed to public policy as per section 23 of the Indian Contract Act as the settlement contemplates lifting of the wages of the workers within three months and in the event of default the amount so not lifted is to be distributed between the employer and the Workers Federation. THErefore, we have to consider these three grounds. Ordinarily a dispute ought to be settled between all parties to the lis. Difficulties may arise where all parties to the lis are not parties to the settlement. In that event the Tribunal or the Labour Court has to apply its mind whether an award should be passed on the basis of such a settlement to which all the parties have not signified their assent and in that event, it becomes necessary to examine whether the settlement is fair or reasonable.;