Shinghal, J. - (1.) The Government of Maharashtra referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, the dispute between the New Standard Engineering Company Ltd., Bombay (referred to as the Company) and its workmen, for adjudication under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The order of reference was made on August 9, 1966, and it stated all the demands of the workmen. The Tribunal gave its award on November 29, 1972. It held, inter alia, that the revised wage scales and the scheme of dearness allowance shall come into force and the workmen shall be entitled to wages at the revised rates from January 1, 1968.
(2.) The Company challenged the award in the High Court by a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution which was fixed for hearing on July 30, 1973. An application was made for an adjournment, but to no avail. The dictation of the judgment commenced on July 31, 1973 and was concluded on August 1, 1973. One of the points which was urged in the High Court was that the Company had arrived at a settlement with the Union known as the Bhartiya Kamgar Sena (respondent No. 3) and an award may be made in terms of that settlement, or a direction may be given to the Tribunal to consider whether the settlement was fair and reasonable. It was brought to the notice of the High Court that some workers had already accepted the settlement and some more may accept it. The request for adjournment on that account, as well as the settlement, were opposed on behalf of the General Engineering Employees Union (respondent No. 2) and some others. The High Court took notice of the fact that respondent No. 3 which claimed to represent "a substantial number of workmen" supported the settlement, but it held that the alleged settlement was "not a settlement under Section 2 (p)" of the Act and it was not open to it to "take notice of the said settlement in proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution." It therefore thought it proper to dispose of the petition on the merits, rather than leave it to uncertainty and inter-union rivalry, which might lead to industrial unrest. In that view of the matter, the High Court dismissed the petition on merits by its judgment dated 31-7-73/1-8-73. In the meantime, the memorandum of settlement was signed by and on behalf of the Company and respondent No. 3 (Bhartiya Kamgar Sena).
(3.) The Company felt aggrieved against the judgment of the High Court and applied for special leave to appeal to this Court. Leave was granted on August 10, 1973 along with an order for stay of enforcement of the award on condition that the appellant paid the workers in accordance with the terms of the settlement of which copies were to be filed by counsel. Thereafter the "consent terms", duly signed, were filed by counsel for the parties and an order was made on September 28, 1973, after notice to all concerned, that the matter would go back to the Industrial Tribunal "for findings and transmission thereof to this Court" along with a copy of the following consent terms,- "The appellants and respondents 2 to 5 agree that the matter be sent down to Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra, Bombay, for recording findings on the following issues: (a) Whether the settlement dated 31st July 1973 between the appellant company and respondent No. 3 is a settlement under Section 2 (p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (b) Whether the settlement was entered into voluntarily. (c) How many workmen covered by the reference have signed and/or accepted the settlement. (d) Whether the individual workmen who have signed and/or accepted the settlement have done so voluntarily. (e) Whether the settlement is just and fair." The Tribunal found issues Nos. (a), (b), (d) and (e) in the affirmative. As regards issue No. (c) it found that out of 1328 workmen who were in service on July 31, 1973, 995 workmen has signed the settlement and had also accepted their dues thereunder, and 242 workmen had only accepted their dues under the settlement by signing receipts though they had not signed the settlement. As regards the workmen who had left the Company between January 1, 1968 and July 31, 1973, the Tribunal found that 910 workmen had accepted their dues under the settlement by passing receipts for the same.;