KARNAL LEATHER KARAMCHARI SANGHATAN (REGD.) versus LIBERTY FOOTWEAR COMPANY (REGD.) & ORS.

Citation: [1989] 3 S.C.R. 1065 · Decided: 31-08-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
KARNAL LEATHER KARAMCHARI SANGHATAN 
(REGD.) 
A 
~ 
v. 
LIBERTY FOOTWEAR COMPANY (REGD.) & ORS. 
>:.-\ 
AUGUST 31, 1989 
"'j 
1' 
B 
[K. JAGANNATHA SHETrY AND A.M. AHMADI, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act 1947-Sub-section 3 of Section JOA-
-· 
Publication of the arbitration Agreement in the Gazette-Whether 
.. 
.,.. 
obligatory or directory and non'publication thereof-Whether renders 
.~ 
the award invalid and unenforceable-Delay in publication-Effect of- c 
't 
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1967-Rule 7. 
'" 
Respondent No. 1 is a registered partnership firm which deals In 
M 
leather footwears at Karilal In Haryana and at other piaces under the 
"/ 
name and style of "Liberty Footwear Company". It had an industrial 
dispute wiih his workmen; the latters' Union complaining that the 
D 
management had terminated the services of more than 200 workmen. 
The management asserted that the persons whose services had been 
"""' 
terminated were not its employees at the material time. The dispute 
having remained nnsettled; the workmen went on strike as a result 
whereof the management had to lay off certain workers. The agitation 
of the workers In front of the factory created a law and order problem 
E 
and the police had to Intervene in the matter. With a view to bring 
about a settlement, the official authorities such as Labour Commis' 
sioner; Labour and Public Health Minister and other. Concerned offi' 
cials all came alid extended their'good officers. They succeeded in their 
..., 
efforts and on March 31,·1988, the parties entered into an agreement 
containing the term8 of settlement of their dispute. It was agreed bet-
F 
ween them that a committee consisting of five persons, two from the 
management and two from the workmen's union, with the Deputy 
· Commissioner Kamal, as the. President should be constituted, as 
arbitrators, to determine the dispute. The Committee gave its award on 
29.4.1988 and 11.5.1988 directing the management to reinstate in all 
159 workers. The management did not implement the award by rein-
G 
~ 
stating the workmen but instead challenged the validity of the award 
by means of a Writ Petition before the High Court. The management 
inter a/ia contended before the High Court that (i) the committee pro-
cedural irregularities; (ii) that the committee did not afford opportunity 
to the management to produce evidence and (iii) that the arbitration 
J-t 
agreement. was not published in the official Gazette as required by 
1065 
-;,,..r
A 
B 
1066 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 3 S.C.R. 
Sub-section (3) of Section lOA of the Act and thus the award made 
without such publication was bad an" invalid. The High Court without 
going into other contentions accepted the Writ Petition only on the 
ground of non-publication of the agreement in the Gazette. It held that 
the requirement of Sub-section 3 of Section IOA is mandatory and its 
non-compliance would vitiate the award. It accordingly directed the 
State Government to publish the agreement in the Gazette and also 
directed the committee tu determine the dispute afresh and pass the 
award after the publication of the agreement. 
The employees' Union has preferred this appeal after obtaining 
Special Leave. In the meanwhile the management had preferred Letters 
C Patent Appeal against certain directions of the Single Judge of the High 
Court which is impugned in this appeal and the State Government has 
referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Ambala, under section 
IO(!) of the Act for adjudication. 
D 
E 
Disposing of the appeal with directions this Court, 
HELD: At both the places viz, in Sub-section (3) and Rule 7 of 
the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1967, it may be noted that the 
legislature has used the word "shall". In the context in which the word 
has been, there is, little doubt about obligation to publish the agreement 
in the official Gazette. [i075F] 
It is now well established that the wordings of any provision are 
not determinative as to whether it is absolute or directory. Even the 
absence of penal provision for non-compliance does not lead to an infer-
ence that it is only directory. The Court, therefore, must carefully get 
into the underlying idea and ascertain the purpose to be achieved 
't' 
F notwithstanding the text of the provision. [ i076D] 
The Act seeks to achieve social justice on the basis of collective 
bargaining. Collective bargaining is a technique by, which dispute as to 
conditions of empl

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