MANAGEMENT OF THE TIRUCHI SRIRANGAM TRANSPORT CO P Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution raises an interesting and important question as to the interpretation of the scope of Section 18 (3) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The question for decision is whether, where there are two separate conciliation proceedings started at the instance of two Unions of different workmen but all belonging to the same establishment and one of such conciliation proceedings ends in a settlement, such a settlement is binding upon the workmen who are members of the other union. In exercise of their power under Section 10 (1) (c), the State Government, by an order dated 4-4-1957, referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras for adjudication a number of issues, of which this petition is concerned with only one, namely, fixation of the rate of increments to all the workers from the year 1953. The Tribunal passed an award in november 1957, which was challenged by the Management in W. P. No. 48 of 1958. So far as the issue relating to the fixation of the rate of increment to all the workers from the year 1953 was concerned, it was quashed by Balakrishna Aiyar, j. with a direction to the Tribunal to dispose of the issue afresh. The Tribunal has now passed a revised award, holding that the workmen of the establishment other than those who were parties to an agreement dated 29-5-1956, would be entitled to increment at the rates fixed in what is known as Venkataramayya's award of the year 1948. It may be mentioned, that, even in the first award, the Tribunal had so found. But Balakrishna Aiyar, J. took the view that, inasmuch as venkataramayya's award had ceased to be in force from 1949 by efflux of time, the question of the rate of increment, which the workmen might be entitled to would have to be decided afresh in the light of the alleged subsequent change of circumstances in the financial position of the management. But, when the Tribunal took up the issue afresh, while it naturally felt bound by the view expressed by this court, it considered that, not- withstanding the fact that Venkataramayya's award had ceased to be in force by efflux of time, the obligations under the Award would still continue to be binding upon the workmen and management concerned in terms of that award. This position was canvassed before the Tribunal and has been repeated here. But it may be mentioned, in fairness to the argument on behalf of the petitioner, that, in view of certain decisions, including the one in Burn and Co. v. Their Employees, (S) this point could not be successfully challenged in this petition. On the question of change of circumstances, the Tribunal after reviewing the relevant evidence, came to the conclusion that the Management was making profit throughout except during the solitary year ending with March 31, 1954, and that, in view of this, the stability of the company could in no view be said to be diminished to any extent. The Tribunal further expressed the opinion that the fact the company worked at a loss only in one year could not furnish a proper justification for altering the structure and scales of wages. Though this finding is sought to be canvassed in this petition, inasmuch as it is one of fact, the finding has to be accepted. On behalf of the company, it was further urged before the tribunal that there was an earlier award of a competent labour court passed under section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act on the identical question of rate of increment and that this worked as a bar to the Tribunal once again adjudicating upon the identical question. But the Tribunal states in its revised award that this objection was taken at the fag-end of the enquiry before it, and expressed the doubt whether the present employees of the company were members of the union at the time of the alleged award under Section 33-A and whether a complaint under Section 33-A was filed on their behalf. The Tribunal apparently thought that this question would involve an investigation into facts and eventually declined to entertain the objection at the late stage. I can find no error in this approach of the tribunal to the said objection. Though this objection was reiterated on behalf of the petitioner in this court, I find myself in agreement with the observations of the tribunal on the question.

(2.) THE more important question which Balakrishna Aiyar, J. directed the Tribunal to decide while considering the matter afresh, is whether the settlement, dated 29-5-1956, and arrived at in the course of a conciliation proceeding, would not bar a second revised award on the question of rate of increment of wages to the workers from the year 1953. In order to appreciate this question, it is necessary to notice a few more facts. The company is doing business as a public transport company. In May 1956, it appears, there were 163 workmen employed by the company, of whom 54 were drivers 54 were conductors and the remaining 55 belonged to the staff. There were two Unions called the Trichi District Motor workers union and the Motor Transport and General Workers Union, the latter consisting of 60 workmen and the former 84 workmen as members out of the total strength of 163 workmen. But the Unions separately raised an industrial dispute on the issue of the rate of increments to be given to the workmen from 1953, and they were taken up for conciliation. It would appear, however, that the dispute sponsored by the Motor Transport and General Workers Union was settled between the management and that Union in terms of the agreement dated 29-5-1956. On the basis of this agreement, the Conciliation Officer passed an order under Section 12 (3) of the Act. It may be mentioned that the settlement so arrived at was without reference to the other Union and the dispute raised by it and pending conciliation at the time before the same officer. The settlement aforesaid also covered not all the workmen, but only drivers and conductors, and fixed the rate of increment in such a way that the drivers drawing a salary above Rs. 60 would not be eligible for any increment. Of the 84 workers who were members of the tiruchi District Motor Workers Union, 21 happened to be drivers who had reached the level of Rs. 60 as salary at the time of the agreement. The Tribunal noted that, in the circumstances, the settlement was detrimental to the interest of those drivers drawing at the time above Rs. 60 as salary. No settlement was as I said arrived at in respect of workers other than drivers and conductors. The conciliation in respect of the identical dispute raised by the Trichi District Motor Workers' Union before the same officer seems to have failed, and, in such circumstances, therefore, the dispute was eventually referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, for adjudication.

(3.) BEFORE that Tribunal, it was pressed on behalf of the management that the said settlement arrived at between the management and the Motor Transport and general Workers Union would, in view of Section 18 (3) (d) of the Act, be binding on the workmen who were members of the Trichi District Motor Workers Union as well, and that, therefore, it was a bar to the same issue covered by the settlement being once again adjudicated upon. The Tribunal negatived this contention, and it is this point which has been considerably debated before me at the Bar.