COOPER ENGINEERING LIMITED versus D. M. ANEY AND OTHERS

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 240 · Decided: 04-05-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

COOPER ENGINEERING LIMITED 
v. 
D. M. ANEY AND OTHERS 
May 4, 1973 
[A, N, GROVER AND C. A. VAID!ALINGAM, JJ.] 
lndustria/ Disputes Act. 1947-Reference to industrial tribunal of industrial 
ot'ispute relating to dt!tlrnes.s allowance etc.-Co1npetency oj reference in view 
oJ earlier settlement.s between employer and workmen-State Government's 'view 
that earlier settlements related 10 interim relief awaiting "final recommendations 
oJ iva~e Board was a possible view, and therefore reference lvas comp"etent. 
A 
B 
On July 6, 1963 there was a settlement between the appellant company and 
two unions of its workmen regarding dearness .allowance. 
On April 1, 1965 
C 
there was another settlement in respect of certain demands but the workmen 
reserved their right to raise d~mands relating to wage scales, adjustmeilt and 
dearness allowance. 
On July 23, 1966 the Central Government accepted the 
recommendations made by the Wage Board set up by it with effect from April 
1, 1966. On November 1, 1966 the appellant and one of the unions of work-
men (2nd !'espondent) entered into a settlement relating to payment of interim 
relief as laid down by the Wage Board. The Union agreed not to raise any 
demand for dearness aIIowance till the Wage Board made its final recommenda-
D 
tions. 
Thi5 positiori was reiterated in another settlement between the 2nd 
respondent and the appellant on l\Iay 13, 1967. On ~lay 16, 1967 the third 
respondent, another union of the appellant's workmen made certain demands 
regarding dearness ailowance. 
By notices given to the appellant company it 
terminated the earlier settlements of 1963, 1965, 1966 and 1967 between the 
appellant and the 2nd respondent. 
l\1ean\\:hile on December 23, 1968/January 
3. 1969, the Wage Board made its final recommendations. Since the appellant 
did not accept the demands of the third respondent and conciliation proceedings 
E 
also failed the State Government on January 25, 1969 referred the dispute 
to the Industrial Tribunal. The appellant challenged the validity 
of 
the 
reference in a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The High 
Court dismissed the petition .. In appeal by special lea":e to this Court. 
IJELD : The State GovernmeOt"s view that the settlements related ont'y to 
interim relief \vas a possible one in the circumstances of this case. 
Hence it 
could not be said that the reference made by the State Government was 
F 
incompetent. [244 F-G] 
None of the settlements entered into by the appeilant with its workmen 
gives any indication that the said settlements were made in view 
of the 
statement made by the l\.1inister for Labour, State of l\.faharashtra. 
On the 
other hand every one of the settlements was preceded by a demand made by 
the union concerned. It \Vas really in the interest of industrial peace 
that 
the appellant appeared to have entered into those settlements. 
Therefore the 
decisions of this Court in Jndo-AfRhan Ageniies and Century Spinning & Manu-
G 
facturing Company Ltd. & A nr. did not apply to the case. [245G] 
Union of India & Ors. v. Al/s Indo-Afgihan Agencies Ltd. [1968] 2 S.C.R. 
366 and Century Spinninf! & lvfanufacturi112 Conipany Ltd. and Anr. v. The 
Ulhasnagar Municipal Council and Anr., (19701 3 S.C.R. 854 held inapplic-
1 
able~he question whether there was discrimination between the appellant and 
another company in the matter of referring. the industrial dhi~pute to the 
1
rdndus-
trial Tribunal was not_ raised before the High Court and t 1s Court cou 
not 
go into the question. 
[246C] 
l --· '" .. _,,, ~ -· ·~ ,., 
ll 
COOPER ENGINEERING LTD. v. D. M. ANEY (Vaidialingam, /,) 
241 
A 
[ln respect of the question \vhether the third respondent had the. ri~ht to-
tern1inate the earlier settlement and whether it represented the maionty of 
wo;krnen in the company, the Court observed that these questions must be 
decided by the Tribunal]. 
OVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : 
Civil Appeal 
No. 
554 of 
1970. 
B 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and or<,ler dated Jnly 
31, and August 1, 1969 of the Bombay High Court in s.c. Appli· 
cation No. 799 of 1969. 
!. N. Shroff, for the appellant. 
J. L. Hathi, K. L. Hathi and P. C. Kapur, for respondent No. 2. 
c 
R. S. Kulkarni and S. C. Agarwala, for respondent No. 3. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
M. C. Bhandare and S. P. Nayar, for respondent No. 4. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
VAIDIALINGAM, J.-By order dated January 25, 1969. the State of 
Maharashtra ref
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.