K. Jagannatha Shetty, J. - (1.) This appeal by leave from a decision of the single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court raises a very short but important question of law relating to the validity of an arbitral award made before publishing the arbitration agreement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (The 'Act').
(2.) The facts which give rise to this appeal may briefly be stated thus: The respondent-1 is a registered partnership firm carrying on its trading activities in leather footwears at Karnal and some other places under the name and style of 'Liberty Footwear Company'. It has its head office at Karnal in the State of Haryana. It had a serious dispute with the workers. The workers' union complained that the management has illegally terminated more than 200 workers. The respondent-1 denied that claim and asserted that the persons whose services were alleged to have been terminated were not its employees at the material time. This dispute however, remained unsettled 'and the workers went on strike which took a violent turn. The management had to lay off certain workers and that added fuel to the fire. The agitation of the workers before the factory premises created law and order problem attracting the police to intervene. The Labour Commissioner and other top officials of the District arrived and they initiated conciliation proceedings. The then Labour Minister and the Public Health Minister of the State Government were also alerted. They also came and extended their good offices to bring about a settlement. They succeeded in their efforts. On March 31, 1988, the parties entered into an agreement containing the terms of settlement of their dispute. On behalf of the management, the agreement was signed by respondents 1, 7 and 8. On behalf of the workers, it was signed by the President and Secretary of the workers' union. It was mutually agreed that a committee consisting of five persons, two from the management and two from the union with the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal as the President should be constituted. They would be the arbitrators to determine the said dispute.
(3.) The committee of arbitrators was accordingly constituted. The Committee gave its award on April 29, 1988 and May 11, 1988 directing the management to reinstate in all 159 workmen. This was the beginning of .another dispute which led to frustrated litigation. The management did not reinstate the workers. It challenged the validity of the award by way of writ petition in the High Court. The award was challenged in the first place on procedural irregularity committed by the Committee of arbitrators. It was, inter alia, contended that the Deputy Commissioner did not participate in the entire proceedings and during his absence, the Administrator Municipal Committee, Karnal held the enquiry. It was also alleged that the Committee did not afford opportunity to the management to produce evidence. Secondly, it was claimed that the arbitration agreement was not published in the official Gazette as required under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 10A of the Act and the award made without such publication would be invalid. The learned single' Judge of the High Court who considered the matter did not examine all the contentions urged by the management. He, however, accepted the writ petition only on the effect of non-publication of the agreement in the. Gazette. He expressed the view that the requirement of the sub-sec. (3) is mandatory and its non-compliance would vitiate the award. With this conclusion he quashed the award and directed the State Government to publish the agreement in the Gazette. He also directed the Committee to determine the dispute afresh and pass an award after publication of' the agreement.;