DARBARI LAL CHIDDAMMI LAL Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT (I), KANPUR AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution seeks to quash an order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kanpur, on 4th Oct., 1966. By the impugned order an application made by the petitioner for computation of benefit under Sec. 6-H (2) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act was dismissed. The petitioners claim was that the parties had entered into a settlement before the Conciliation Board, Kanpur in Case No. 94 of 1964 which had not been given effect to. The employers, on the other hand, contend-that they had fully implemented the settlement. The Presiding Officer held that the employers implemented the settlement. He further found that the settlement arrived at during the conciliation proceedings was not published by the State Government under Sec. 7 (ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The settlement which has not been so enforced by the State Government could not be binding on the parties legally, and furnish a cause of action for an objection under Sec. 6-H (2). At best the matter could be raised in the form of an industrial dispute for adjudication under Sec. 4-K of the Act.

(2.) In my opinion the latter finding of the Presiding Officer is sound. The purpose of the Industrial Disputes Act is also to introduce the State Government in industrial adjudications. Under Sec. 7 (2) the State Government has been given the power to enforce an agreement reached in conciliation proceedings for the purposes contemplated by Sec. 3. The purposes contemplated by Sec. 3 inter alia are prohibition of strikes or lock-outs generally or in connection with any industrial dispute, and, to require employers, workmen or both to observe the prescribed terms and conditions of employment. A settlement in respect of the conditions of service of a workman would be in relation to a purpose mentioned in Sec. 3. Such a settlement can be enforced under Sec. 7 (2). Under Sec. 7 (2) the State Government has power to enforce the settlement for such period as it may specify. Thus, the mere existence of a settlement does not conclude the matter. It becomes enforceable by force of the order of the State Government under Sec. 7 (2). Till the State Government chooses to enforce it under that provision, a settlement or an agreement reached in conciliation proceedings would not be deemed enforceable.

(3.) Proceedings under Sec. 6-H (which is identical to Sec. 33-C of the Central Industrial Disputes Act) are in their true nature and character execution proceeding See Bombay Gas Co. Vs. Gopal Bhiva, (1963) 2 Lab LJ 608 : (A.I.R. 1964 SC 752) . They pre-suppose an enforceable settlement and provide the procedure for its execution. In my opinion till a settlement is enforceable, it cannot be executed under Sec. 6-H. The labour Court was right in dismissing the petitioners application on the ground that the petitioners claim about settlement was not enforceable in law.