Case Note & Summary
The writ petition arose from a decision of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Mumbai, who by order dated 2nd July 2005 closed conciliation proceedings initiated by the Hindustan Lever Employees Union against respondent No.3-Company. The union had raised demands on 7th December 2004 concerning the proposed transfer of the company's Sewri factory to M/s Bon Limited, including declarations that the reorganisation was not legal or justified, and that workmen should not be transferred without consent. During conciliation, the management sought to enforce the transfer, leading to the union filing Complaint No.798 of 2004 before the Industrial Court. Interim relief was refused, and the union moved the High Court by Writ Petition No.269 of 2005. On 28th February 2005, a learned Single Judge disposed of that petition by consent, recording an arrangement without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. The consent order provided that upon transfer, workmen would have the option to transfer under Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (clause a); the management reserved its rights to take steps in accordance with law for workmen not transferring (clause b); the Assistant Commissioner of Labour was to conclude conciliation proceedings expeditiously (clause c); and all questions of law and facts were expressly kept open (clause d). Subsequently, respondent No.3 filed an SLP against an earlier Division Bench order of the High Court, and the Supreme Court passed a status quo order on 28th March 2005, later modified on 9th May 2005 to make it subject to the consent order. Relying on the consent order, the Assistant Commissioner held that the dispute did not survive and closed conciliation on 2nd July 2005. The union challenged this order by the present writ petition. The main issues were whether the consent order settled the entire dispute, and whether the Assistant Commissioner could close conciliation based on it. The union argued that the order did not close conciliation; the company contended it covered all disputes. The High Court (H.L. Gokhale and Smt. R.S. Dalvi, JJ.) examined the consent order in its entirety. It held that clauses (a) and (b) were an interim arrangement allowing immediate transfer, but clause (c) clearly kept conciliation alive. The court noted that had the parties intended to settle all issues, they would have said so, and clause (c) would have been absent. Since all questions of law and fact were kept open, the conciliation officer was bound to proceed. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the Assistant Commissioner to continue conciliation and conclude it expeditiously. It clarified that the consent order permitted the transfer, but the legality of the management's decision remained open for determination in conciliation or later adjudication. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Conciliation Proceedings - Effect of Consent Order - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 25FF - A consent order passed by the High Court that expressly keeps open all questions of law and fact and directs the Conciliation Officer to conclude proceedings expeditiously does not constitute a final settlement of the industrial dispute; it is merely an interim arrangement pending further determination. Held that the Conciliation Officer cannot close the conciliation on the basis of such consent order and must proceed in accordance with law (Paras 10-11). B) Interpretation of Consent Orders - Interim Arrangement vs. Final Settlement - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Where a consent order contains clauses providing for transfer of undertaking and options to workmen (clauses (a) and (b)) along with a clause directing the Conciliation Officer to conclude proceedings (clause (c)), the latter clause indicates that the conciliation survives and the legality of the transfer remains open for determination. Held that clauses (a) and (b) were interim measures to facilitate reorganisation, while clause (c) preserved the workers' right to challenge the transfer through conciliation and subsequent adjudication (Paras 10-12). C) Practice and Procedure - Writ Petitions - Clarity of Orders - When a consent order is clear on its face, no further clarification is necessary, and the court may refuse to clarify when moved subsequently (Para 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Assistant Commissioner of Labour was justified in closing conciliation proceedings on the ground that the dispute did not survive in view of the consent order dated 28th February 2005 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.269 of 2005.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 2nd July 2005 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, and directed the Assistant Commissioner to proceed with conciliation and conclude it expeditiously. It held that clauses (a) and (b) of the consent order were an interim arrangement, and clause (c) kept conciliation alive; all questions of law and fact remained open for determination.
Law Points
- Consent order containing interim arrangement does not bar conciliation
- Conciliation officer must conclude proceedings when directed
- All questions of law and fact kept open preserve right to challenge legality
- Clauses in consent order must be read harmoniously
- Interim arrangement pending conciliation does not amount to settlement of dispute
