POONA MAZDOOR SABHA Vs. DHUTIA G K ESCO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition raises a rather important question with regard to conciliation proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act. It appears that there was a dispute between the second opponent company and its workers with regard to wages, dearness allowance, leave facilities, etc., and on 30 January, 1955 a meeting of the workers was called where one Mahadik was authorized by his co-workers to make representations to the second opponent company with regard to their demands. The second opponent company wanted to negotiate with the workers who had a representative capacity and therefore the Government labour officer was approached to hold a meeting at which representatives of the workers would be elected under his supervision. Accordingly a meeting was held on 17 March, 1955 at which five workmen were elected by the workers present to be their representatives. On 7 April, 1955 the second opponent company and the elected representatives of the workers wrote a letter to the conciliation officer to the effect that they had come to a negotiated agreement in regard to the demand relating to wages, dearness allowance and leave facilities and that they desired to sign memorandum of settlement before him. Accordingly on 11 April, 1955 both the parties appeared before the conciliation officer, the first opponent, and produced before his a draft agreement. This draft agreement was considered by the conciliation officer and he explained to the elected representatives of the workers in Marathi the various terms of the agreement, the agreement having been drafted in English. There was considerable discussion over each clause of the agreement and one of the terms was modified by the conciliation officer and the parties appearing before him approved of this modification. The whole discussion lasted about an hour. The conciliation officer then adjourned the proceedings, advising the elected representatives to consult the other workers and their advisers before coming to a final decision in the matter. The elected representatives then saw the first opponent in the afternoon and approved of the draft agreement as was modified. Thereupon a memo of settlement was prepared in the prescribed form and was signed by the parties. On 1 April, 1955 the petitioner-union was formed and it was registered on 1 June, 1955 and on 23 June, 1955 the union made certain demands upon the second opponent company, which demands were the subject-matter of the settlement already arrived at. As the employer-company, the second opponent, was not prepared to concede these demands, the petitioner approached the first opponent to initiate conciliation proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act. The first opponent refused to do so on the ground that there was a subsisting statement arrived at between the parties and so long as that settlement continued he had no jurisdiction to initiate conciliation proceedings under the Act. It may be pointed out that the duration of the settlement as mentioned in the settlement itself was five years. The view taken by the first opponent was that the settlement was binding upon the parties for the period mentioned in the settlement and so long as the settlement was binding it was not open to him to initiate conciliation proceedings under the Act. The petitioner has come before us on this petition for a writ of mandamus against the first opponent to compel him to perform his statutory duty and to initiate conciliation proceedings under S. 12.

(2.) It has been very forcefully argued by Mr. Bhandare on behalf of the petitioner that the settlement between the parties had already been arrived at before the parties approved the conciliation officer, and according to him the conciliation officer had no jurisdiction to record the settlement which he did on 11 April, 1955. For this purpose attention is drawn to S. 12 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of that section provides :

(3.) What is argued by Mr. Bhandare is that the condition precedent to the jurisdiction of the conciliation officer to hold conciliation proceedings is the existence or apprehension of an industrial dispute, and it is pointed out that in this case the industrial dispute had come to an end with the settlement arrived at between the parties on 7 April, 1955. It is therefore urged that the conciliation officer recorded the settlement on 11 April, 1955 by holding conciliation proceedings when there was no industrial dispute in existence nor was any industrial dispute apprehended. It is said that S. 12(1) does not permit the conciliation officer to hold conciliation proceedings merely for the purpose of recording a settlement which has already been arrived at. Conciliation proceedings can only be held when there is an industrial dispute or an industrial dispute is apprehended. We will assume for the sake of this argument that there was an agreement arrived at between the parties antecedent to 11 April, 1955 and on this assumption we have to ask ourselves the question whether that would exclude the jurisdiction of the conciliation officer to record the settlement arrived at.