- (1.) This petitioner was under an obligation to make an ad hoc increase in the wages of its workmen at the rate of Rs. 6/- per month with effect from January 1, 1960, and to a further additional increase of Rs. 2/- per month with effect from January 1, 1962, in pursuance of two notifications issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh on 20th September, 1960 and 19th January, 1962, respectively. The case of the petitioner is that a settlement was arrived at between it on the one hand and its workmen represented by the Sooti Mill Mazdoor Panchayat on the other on 20th December, 1962, whereby the petitioner was exonerated from paying to its workmen the wages at the enhanced rate for the period prior to January 1, 1963, provided it paid in a lump sum Rs. 40/- to each workman in the manner prescribed in the agreement. Their further case is that the said agreement was registered under Section 6-B of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. Copies of the agreement and the certificate of registration referred to above have been attached as Annexures 4 and 5 respectively to the writ petition. The workman of the petitioner Mills subsequently made a demand for the payment of the enhanced wages for the period prior to January 1, 1963. Their demand was, however, not met by the petitioner. Consequently the State Government referred the following dispute under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the Industrial Tribunal I, Allahabad, for adjudication : "Whether the employers have wrongfully and/or unjustifiably deprived the workmen mentioned in the annexure of the payment of ad hoc increase of Rs. 6/- per month with effect from January 1, 1960, and further additional increase of Rs. 2/- per month with effect from January 1, 1962? If so, to what relief are they entitled?" After hearing the parties the Industrial Tribunal, respondent No. 1, gave an award in favour of the workmen on 31st July, 1972. It held that the Sooti Mill Mazdoor Panchayat, the union of workmen, which is said to have arrived at the settlement referred to above did not represent all the workmen of the petitioner mills. It also held : "There is also no evidence that the Suti Mill Mazdoor Panchayat represented a substantial majority of the workmen. There is evidence on record to show that there were other trade unions at Hathras which also represented the workmen of this concern. Those Unions, however, for reasons best known to the concern, were not taken into confidence and the settlement dated 20-12- 62 was evidently made behind their back." Respondent No. 1 also held that since by the settlement relied on by the petitioner the workmen purported to forgo a part of their wages which was payable to them without any deduction as contemplated by S. 7, Payment of Wages Act, other than the deductions enumerated therein, the said settlement was null and void in view of S. 23, Payment of Wages Act. It is this award of the Industrial Tribunal which is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.
(2.) Having heard counsel for the parties we are of opinion that there is no substance in this writ petition. The finding recorded by the Industrial Tribunal that the Sooti Mill Mazdoor Panchayat did not represent the substantial majority of the workmen and that there were other Unions also which represented the workmen is a finding of fact based on appraisal of evidence and cannot be challenged under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Workmen, Tata Chemicals, 1978 AIR(SC) 828) : (1978 Lab I C 637) it was held that even if a settlement regarding certain demand is arrived at otherwise than during the conciliation proceeding between the employer and the Union representing majority workmen, the same is not binding on the other Union who represents minority workmen and who was not a party to that settlement.
(3.) Indeed from the tenor of the award it appears that the Tribunal appears to have accepted the case of the workmen that the Sooti Mill Mazdoor Panchayat was definitely not representing the majority workmen and illegally deprived them of their right to get the increased wages for the years 1960, 1961 and 1962 in full. The Tribunal has also held that it was difficult to believe that the workmen would have consented to such a heavy deduction unless things had been misrepresented to them, presumably by the Sooti Mill Mazdoor Panchayat which had signed the agreement on their behalf and this explains why they had reagitated the matter in 1966, after having come to know of the fraud which had been played on them. In our opinion these findings should be enough to sustain the award. However, we proceed to consider the other submissions also made by the counsel for the petitioner, viz., that S. 23, Payment of Wages Act, was not applicable in view of S. 17, U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. To appreciate this argument it would be useful to quote here S. 23, Payment of Wages Act, as well as S. 17, U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. Section 23, Payment of Wages Act, reads : "23. Contracting out: Any contract or agreement whether before or after the commencement of this Act, whereby an employed person relinquishes any right conferred by this Act shall be null and void in so far as it purports to deprive him of such right." Section 17, U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, on the other hand, reads : "17. Effect of provision inconsistent with other enactments: Any rule or order made or deemed to be made under this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other enactment or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any other enactment." It has not been disputed that but for the settlement relied on by it the petitioner would have been under an obligation to pay the additional wages referred to above to its workmen in view of S. 7, Payment of Wages Act, without making any deduction other than the deductions specified therein. What has been urged is that since the settlement referred to above had been registered under S. 6-B of the Act, the act of registration amounted to an "order made or deemed to be made under this Act" within the meaning of S. 17 of the Act and consequently the said order would override the provisions of S.23, Payment of Wages Act.;