LexJHAGRAKHAN COLLIERIES (P) LTD. versus SHRI G. C. AGARWAL, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL ·TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
873
JHAGRAKHAN COLLIERIES (P) LTD.
v.
Sl!RI G. C. AGARWAL, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOV·
ERNMENT INDUSTRIAL ·TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR AND ORS.
November 28', 1974
[A. ALAGIRISWAMI AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.J
, Industrial Disputes Act, Sections 2(P) and 18-Co11ciliation agreement arrived
at in proceedings otherwise than as required under the Act-Acceptance of the
settleme/11 by cc>nituct by workmen 1101 parties to settlement-Effect.
Industrial Disputes Act, Sections 10(1) and 33-C ('t)-Settlement during
pendenq of proceedings under sec. 33·C (2 )-Settlement, if terminates the
proceedings.
The three collieries owned by the appellant company employ over 4,200 work-
men. At the relevant time there were three Trade Unions fooctioning at the
collieries namely, Madhya Pradesh· Koyla Mazdoor Panchayat,
Azad
Koyla
Shramik Sabha and Madhya Pradesh Colliery Workers• Federation.
At the matcrjal. time, the Panchayat, according to the allegations of the
Company, had about 75 per cent of the workers on its rolls. This Union con-
duded a complete strike for 57 days in the months of March and April 1968 at
the collieries. The Central Wage Board for Mining Industry by its award re·
commended payment of Variable Dearness Allowance (V.D.A.), correlated to
the cost of living index prevailing from time to time. The Company accepted
those recommendations. The workers represented by the various Unions, on the
basis of the Wage Board's award, demanded V.D.A. at the rate of Rs. J.47 per
day With e!Rct from April .1. 1%8 while the Company was paying it at the rate
of Re. 1.11 per day. The Company refused to pay more than Re. I.I! per day.
Thereupon, in December 1968, the Federation which had a membership of 169
workers (Respondents 4 to 173) made an application before the Central Labour
Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal Jabalpur (the Labour Court) under s. 33-C(2l
of the Industrial DisptLtcs Act for determination of the amount of V.D.A. due
tc the workers. The Company submitted its Written Statement on May 13, 1969,
challenging the jurisdiction of the court and raised other legal objections.
In consequence of the notice of strike under Sec. 22(1) of the Act )>y tbe
Panchayat, the eonciliation proceedings to be under s. 22 read with sec. 12(1)
of the Act were held by Mr. B. D. Sharma. Assistant Labour Commissioner. In
the course of these conciliation jll'oceedings besides other matters, the dispute
relating to V.D.A. was settled. Subsequent to tbe signing of the conciliation
agreement, the company filed a supplementary statement before the LabOur Court
that, in. yiew of the settlement, the application filed by the Federation had become
infructuous. The stand taken by the workers was that the settlement was not
in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Labour Court tried
this
issue as a preliminary issue. It held that Shri Sharma was not a, duly appointed
.conciliation officer on the date on which tile settlement was arrived at. and con·
sequently, it did not put an end to the dispute pending before the Labour Court.
The Writ Petition filed by the Company in the High Court impugning the order
of the Labour Court was dismissed.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
It was contended for the appellant-·(i) Assuming that the settlement in
question was not a settlement in the course of conciliation proceedings and bind·
ing under s. 18(3) of the Act, it WllS still a settlement binding on the workmen,
including respondents 4 to 173 herein, when 99 per cent of the total workmen
had accepted the terms of the settlement, including V.D.A; (ii) The Labour
H
Court's order refusing permission to the appellant Company to lead evidence
to prove the implementatic'.'. and acceptance of. the aforesaid settlement by 99
per cent of the workers. was violative of the principles of n&tural justice, . and
(iii) There is nothing in the Act which prohibits the employers and the workmen
9-346SCI/75
874
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 2 S.C.R.
from entering into a settlement during the pendency of proceedings
under
s. 33-C(2) of the Act. On the other ·hand, settlements illfer se between the parties
hav~ always been preferred by this Court to the adjudicatory process.
A
HBLD 0) A perusal of sec. 18 of the Act makes it clear that a settlement
arrived at in the ·:ourse of conciliation proceedings is binding not only on the
actual parties to the industrial di!>lJu.te but also onExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.