AMETEEP MACHINE TOOLS versus LABOUR COURT HARYANA & ANOTHER

Citation: [1981] 1 S.C.R. 768 · Decided: 22-09-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

768 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
AMETEEP MACHINE TOOLS 
v. 
LABOUR COURT HARYANA & ANOTHER 
September 22, 1980 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.] 
Industrial Dispules Act, 1947, section 36, scope of. 
\ 
The appellant company manufactures 
machine tools at its 
factory in 
Faridabad employing 250 workmen including the second resp:mdent, Sadhu 
Singh. 
Demands of the workmen for an improvement in the conditions of 
the service led to conciliation proceedings and a settlemen-t under s. 12 was 
recorded on June 20, .1969 by the Conciliation Officer. The settlement included 
a provision that the workmen would not raise any demand involving further 
financial burden on the appellant for a period of two years. 
Before the 
expiry of that period, however, a fresh demand was raised on August 17, 1970 
by the General Labour Union asking for dearness allowance at 25 per cent. 
The management having refused this demand the workmen resorted to a 
"sit down" strike on August 26 and 27, 1970. The second respondent Sadhu 
Singh was charged with alleging serious misconduct. 
Sadhu Singh did not 
participate in the inquiry. 
Accepting the report submitted by the Inquiry 
Officer that Sadhu Singh was guilty of 
instigating the 
workmen to go on 
strike the services of Sadhu Singh were terminated by the management with 
immediate effect by an order dated September 14, 1970. 
The management 
dismissed some other workm1~n also. 
The dismissal of all workmen formed 
the subject of another settlement under s. 12 of the Act dated November 21, 
1970 and it was agreed that the dismissed workmen including Sadhu Singh 
•should be ;regarded as retrenched from servicei. 
The remaining workmen 
agreed to resume 
work unconditionally. 
Sadhu Singh, took up the matter 
before the Labour Court stating that not being a signatory to the settlement 
of November 21, 1970 he was not bound by it. The Labour Cnurt accepted 
his plea and made its ward on September 30, 1972. It found that the domestic 
inquiry was not proper inasmuch as ·notice of the inquiry had failed to ~each 
Sadhu Singh, thereby preventing him from participating in the domestic inquiry. 
Further it held that since Sadhu Singh had been ill from August 24, to Sep-
tember 9, 1970 he could not be said to have instigated 
the strike. 
The 
appellant having failed before 
the High 
Court has come in 
appeal after 
obtaining special leave from this Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD : Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act provides for repre-
sentation of the parties to a dispute. 
The workmen are entitled by virtue' of 
sub-section (1) to be represented in a proceeding under the Act by a member 
of the executive or other office bearer of a registered trade union of .which 
'. 
AMETEEP MACHINE v. LABOUR COURT (Pathak, J.) 
769 
they are members or of a· federation of trade unions to which that trade union · ·A 
is affiliated, and where the workmen is riot a member of any trade union, 
be can be represented by a member of the executive or other office bearer 
-0f a trade union connected with, or by any other workman employed in, 
·the industry in which the workmen is employed. It is not obligatory, how-
-ever, that a workman who is a party to a dispute must be represented by 
.. another. 
He may participate in the pr6ceeding himself. . Where conciliation 
proceedings are taken and a settlement is reached, it is a valid settlement and 
B 
binding on the parties even if the workmen who are party to the dispute 
participate in the proceedings personally and are not represented by any of 
"the persons mentioned in s. 36(,1) of the Act. 
In1 the present case; (ll by 
executing a memorandum the several workmen who individually signed it 
on 21st August, 1970 bound themselves by the terms of the settlement, but as 
Sadhu Singh had not signed the memorandum nor had he authorised any 
-of the workman to sign the memorandum on his behalf he was not bound by 
C 
the settlement. (2) The settlement of 21st November, 19.70 can on no account 
·be understood as covering and concluding the demand for recalling the order 
-dismissing Sadhu Singh, as his re-instatement was never included in the charter 
of demands of the workmen which led to thll conciliation proceedings and 
·those proceedings did not involve the. consideration of such a demand. 
In 
the circumstances, it was open to Sadhu Singh, to assail his dismissal from 
service and to contend that the settlement of 21st November 1970 di

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.