MYSORE VEGETABLE OIL PRODUCTS LTD Vs. THEIR WORKMEN AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before us is the management of a company called the Mysore Vegetable Oil Products, Ltd. The respondents are the workmen of that company. In the course of a conciliation proceeding relating to a dispute between these workmen and the company, a settlement was reached on 23 December, 1957, in regard to bonus, increments, grades and scales of pay. Clause 2 of that settlement provided that pending the fixation of grades and scales, the company would implement the terms of that agreement. According to the agreement between the parties, the settlement had to be in force for a period of one year from 23 December, 1957. After the expiry of that period of one year, the company declined to continue to implement the terms of the settlement with the result that an industrial dispute came into existence. That dispute was referred under Sub-section (1) of S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the labour court and that Court made an award in favour of the workmen. The award made by the labour court rested on its view that although, according to the agreement between the parties, the settlement had to be in operation only for a year, that settlement continued to be operative since no notice in writing of any intention to terminate the settlement was given by any of the parties. That view taken by the labour court rested on the provisions of Sub-section (2) of S. 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act, and it is the correctness of the this view which is assailed by the company in this application. No other submission has been made on behalf of the company to us.

(2.) Our decision in this application should rest upon what should be the true construction of Sub-clause (2) of S. 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Sub-section (1) of that section provides that a settlement shall come into operation on the date fixed by the parties to the dispute, and if no such date is fixed, on the date on which the memorandum of the settlement is signed by them. Now, Sub-section (2) of that section, on the interpretation of which depends our decision in this case, reads :

(3.) This sub-section first provides that every settlement referred to in Sub-section (1) shall be in operation for the period fixed by the parties if such period is fixed by them. It next proceeds to provide that if no such period is fixed by the parties, it will be in operation for a period of six months. This part of Sub-section (2) is clear and can give rise to no controversy in regard to its interpretation. But it is the interpretation of the other part of this sub-section on which the parties are not in agreement and that part reads :