Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the dismissal of sixty workmen by the appellant company following an illegal strike. A settlement had been arrived at on February 18, 1954, during conciliation proceedings, but despite this settlement some workmen went on strike on February 23, 1954. The appellant treated the strike as illegal and, after issuing charge-sheets and holding managerial inquiries, dismissed sixty workmen. Conciliation proceedings followed, and an agreement was signed between the appellant and the union on September 2, 1954, which dealt with the dismissed workmen in three categories. The Labour Commissioner was apprised of this settlement but proposed further conciliation proceedings for certain workmen, which the appellant opposed. The Labour Commissioner then reported to the Government under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the Government made two references to the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, Patna. The Tribunal passed a common award on February 24, 1959, holding that the strike was illegal but setting aside the dismissals of all sixty workmen. It found that no violence was proved, and there were extenuating circumstances as the workmen were misled by union politics. The Tribunal awarded varying back wages depending on whether charge-sheets were served. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, raising three contentions: first, that the reference was incompetent because of the September 2, 1954 settlement; second, that the dispute was an individual dispute not an industrial dispute; and third, that the Tribunal's reinstatement order was unjustified. The Supreme Court held that a settlement binding under Section 18 must have the assistance and concurrence of the conciliation officer; the September 2, 1954 agreement lacked such approval and therefore did not bar the reference. The Court also held that the dispute was an industrial dispute because it was sponsored by the union and related to the dismissal of a large number of workmen. On the third point, the Court held that where the Tribunal found misconduct meriting dismissal and the managerial inquiry was proper, interference was not justified unless there was discrimination, victimisation, or unfair labour practice. The Court followed Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen and distinguished I.G.N. and Railway Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeals in part, setting aside the Tribunal's award of reinstatement for the 47 workmen who had been properly charge-sheeted and against whom proper inquiry was held, while the reinstatement of the remaining 13 workmen, who had not been properly served with charge-sheets, was not disturbed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Dispute - Settlement and Conciliation - Binding Effect under Section 18 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sections 12, 18 - The Court held that a settlement which is binding under Section 18 as arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings must be reached with the assistance and concurrence of the conciliation officer; a settlement lacking such approval is not binding and cannot bar a government reference under Section 12. In the present case, the September 2, 1954 agreement did not have the approval of the conciliation officer, hence the reference based on the conciliation officer's report was competent. Held that the references were not incompetent on this ground. (Paras 1-11) B) Industrial Dispute - Reference of Individual Dispute - Union Sponsorship - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 10 - The Court rejected the contention that the reference was bad because it related to an individual dispute between the employer and its workmen; since the dispute was originally sponsored by the union and related to the dismissal of a much larger number of workmen, it constituted an industrial dispute. The reference was valid on this count. (Paras 1-11) C) Industrial Dispute - Interference with Management's Disciplinary Action - Managerial Inquiry and Misconduct - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Standing Orders - The Court held that where the Tribunal found misconduct meriting dismissal under the Standing Orders and the managerial inquiry was proper, the Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the management's action unless it found unreasonable discrimination in taking back employees, unfair labour practice, or victimisation. The Court followed Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen and distinguished I.G.N. and Railway Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen. Held that the Tribunal erred in reinstating the 47 workmen against whom proper inquiry had been held. (Paras 1-11)
Issue of Consideration
1. Whether the reference was incompetent because a settlement had been arrived at during the course of conciliation proceedings on September 2, 1954, which specifically dealt with the case of the sixty workmen, in view of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. Whether the reference was incompetent because what was referred was not an industrial dispute but a dispute between the employer and its individual workmen. 3. Whether the Tribunal's order of reinstatement was unjustified.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the references were competent because the September 2, 1954 settlement lacked the approval of the conciliation officer and was not binding under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; the dispute was an industrial dispute as it was sponsored by the union and related to the dismissal of a large number of workmen. However, the Court held that the Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the management's action where misconduct meriting dismissal under the Standing Orders was found and the managerial inquiry was proper, absent unreasonable discrimination, unfair labour practice, or victimisation. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeals in part, setting aside the Tribunal's award of reinstatement for the 47 workmen who had been properly charge-sheeted and against whom proper inquiry was held, while the reinstatement of the remaining 13 workmen, who had not been properly served with charge-sheets, was not disturbed.
Law Points
- Settlement binding under Section 18 requires assistance and concurrence of conciliation officer
- settlement without approval of conciliation officer not binding and not bar to reference
- reference of dispute sponsored by union not an individual dispute
- tribunal cannot interfere with management's disciplinary action where misconduct proved and inquiry proper absent discrimination victimisation or unfair labour practice
- illegal strike during currency of settlement
