Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose between Jhagrakhan Collieries (P) Ltd., the appellant company owning three collieries employing over 4,200 workmen, and its workmen represented by three trade unions, namely, Madhya Pradesh Koyla Mazdoor Panchayat, Azad Koyla Shramik Sabha, and Madhya Pradesh Colliery Workers' Federation. The Central Wage Board for Coal Mining Industry recommended payment of Variable Dearness Allowance (V.D.A.) correlated to the cost of living index. The company accepted these recommendations but paid V.D.A. at Rs. 1.11 per day, while the workers demanded Rs. 1.47 per day effective from April 1, 1968. In December 1968, the Federation, with 169 members (respondents 4 to 173), filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Central Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal Jabalpur for determination of the amount of V.D.A. due. The company filed a written statement on May 13, 1969, challenging jurisdiction. On October 4, 1969, the Panchayat served a strike notice under Section 22(1) leading to conciliation proceedings under Section 12(1) conducted by Mr. B. D. Sharma, Assistant Labour Commissioner. During these proceedings, the dispute relating to V.D.A. was settled. The company filed a supplementary statement asserting the application had become infructuous. The workers contended the settlement was not in accordance with the Act. The Labour Court tried the issue as a preliminary issue and held that Shri Sharma was not a duly appointed conciliation officer on the date of settlement, and therefore the settlement did not put an end to the pending dispute. The company's writ petition in the High Court was dismissed. The Supreme Court considered whether the settlement, even if not a conciliation settlement, was binding on the Federation's workmen due to acceptance by 99% of workers; whether refusal to allow evidence to prove such acceptance violated natural justice; and whether a settlement during pendency of Section 33-C(2) proceedings terminates those proceedings. The Court held that under Section 18(3), only a settlement arrived at in duly conducted conciliation proceedings binds all workmen. Since the conciliation officer was not duly appointed, Section 18(3) could not be invoked. An implied agreement by acquiescence or conduct, being outside the Act, is not binding under Section 18(1) or 18(3). Even if 99% of workers accepted the settlement, it would not terminate the Labour Court proceedings. The refusal to allow evidence at the preliminary stage caused no prejudice as the issue was a question of law and the agreement was not ruled out for all purposes. Section 33-C(2) is in the nature of an executing provision, and cases appropriately under Section 10(1) are outside its scope. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's order.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes Act - Conciliation Settlement - Binding Effect - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 18(3) - A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings duly conducted under Section 12 binds all workmen; but if the conciliation officer was not duly appointed, Section 18(3) cannot be invoked to bind workmen of another union. The settlement between Panchayat and management was not deemed a conciliation settlement, so it did not bind respondents 4 to 173 represented by Federation. Held that implied agreement by acquiescence or conduct, being outside the Act, is not binding under Section 18(1) or 18(3). (Paras 878C-E, 879A-B) B) Industrial Disputes Act - Evidence - Natural Justice - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 33-C(2) - Labour Court's refusal to allow appellant to lead evidence on acceptance of settlement was not prejudicial because the issue was a pure question of law; decision did not debar relevant evidence on remaining issues or rule out agreement for all purposes. Held no violation of natural justice. (Paras 879C-E) C) Industrial Disputes Act - Scope of Section 33-C(2) - Execution Proceedings - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sections 33-C(2) and 10(1) - Section 33-C(2) is wider than 33-C(1) but cases appropriately adjudicable under Section 10(1) are outside its purview; provisions are in nature of executing provisions. The jurisdiction of Labour Court was circumscribed by Section 33-C(2) and matter yet at initial stage. Held settlement during pendency of proceedings under Section 33-C(2) does not automatically terminate them. (Paras 880F-G)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a settlement arrived at during conciliation proceedings but not in accordance with the Act is binding on workmen represented by a different union under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act; Whether acceptance of settlement by conduct by 99% workers binds remaining workers and terminates pending proceedings under Section 33-C(2); Whether refusal to allow evidence to prove acceptance violates natural justice.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The settlement was not binding on respondents 4 to 173; the Labour Court's order was upheld.
Law Points
- Settlement arrived at in conciliation proceedings under Section 12 and Section 18(3) of Industrial Disputes Act binds all workmen
- Implied agreement by acquiescence or conduct not binding under Section 18(1) or 18(3) for workmen not parties
- Settlement during pendency of proceedings under Section 33-C(2) does not automatically terminate proceedings
- Section 33-C(2) is executing provision and cases appropriately under Section 10(1) are outside its purview
- Refusal to allow evidence may not cause prejudice if issue is question of law
