LexSHUKLA MANSETA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. versus THE WORKMEN EMPLOYED UNDER IT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SHUKLA MANSETA INDUSTRIES P'LT. LTD. v. THE WORKMEN EMPLOYED UNDER IT August 2, 1977 [V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND P. K. GOSWAMI JJ.] 249 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-S. 19(2)-Scope of-Eniployers and e1n- p/fJyees arrived at se1tlen1ent to be operath·e for three years--Eniployecs gave 11olt'ce of tennination two u1011tlls before the expiry of the period of three years- Vaf it!ity of notice. A B Section 19(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides that a settle- ment shall be binding on the parties for such period as is agreed up-0n by them and shall continue to be binding after the expiry of the period until the C expiry of two months from the date on which a notice in writing. of an intention to terminate the settlement is given by one of thr, parties to the other party Of parties to the settlement. The appellant·employers and the respondent·worker5 agreed that the settle- ment reached by them in 1970 should be in force for three years till 5th July, 1973. On May 6, 1973 the workers gave notice terminating the settlement after the expiry of two months from the date of notice. Demands raised by the workmen on August l, 1973 we.re. referred to an Industrial Tribunal. The D employers' preliminary objection that the reference was incompetent since there ~·as no legal and valid termination of the settlement undtr s. 19(2) was rejected l:Jy the Tribunal. Dismissing the employers' appeal to this Court HELD : There is no legal bar to give advance intimation about the intention to terminate thl.": settlement on the expiry of the agreed period and to start negotiation for a more favourable settlement immediately thereafter. The only condition to be fulfilled by such a notice is that the period of two month5 from the date of notice must end on the expiry of the settlement and not before it. [255H] ( 1) The policy of the Act is to ban agitations Clver the matters covered by a settlement or by an award during the period specified under s. 19(2) and s. 19(6) respectively. To avoid uncertainty and speculation s. 19 prescribes -a tenninus a quo and a tenninus ad qutn1. If in a settlement there is no tin1e limit agreed upon between the parties the period of operation is a space of six months from the date of signing of the settlement and will last until the expiry of two months from the date of receipt of the notice of termination of the settlement. If the period is fixed it commences from- the date as specified in the settlement and will theoretically end as agreed upon, but shall continue to operate under the Jaw until the expiry of the requisite period of two months by a clear \Vritten notice. [253C-D] (2) Jn an industrial matter this Court is not prepared to subject a notice under s. 19(2) to thl.": irksome vagaries or tyranny of technicalities of a notice under s. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. [256Bl (3) Notice under s. 19(2) or under s. 19(6) is only for intimation of an ~ntenti~n to terminate a settlement or an award respectively. There is no legal impediment to give advance intimation of the aforesaid intention provided the r.ontractual or statutory period of settlement is not thereby affected or curtailed. J253FJ Manage111e11t of Bangalore Woollen, Cotton & Silk Mills Co. Ltd. v. The l'Vork1nen fl968J I SCR 581; Indian Link Chain Manufactures Ltd v. Their 'fVork1nen fl972] I SCR 790; National Carbon Co. (India) l.Jd. v. 'i\1, N. Gan. Judge, Labour Appellale Tribunal & Ors A.I.R. 1957 Cal. 500; Deccan Tile Works v. Their Workn1en (Tile Fnctorirs Workers' Union, Sa1nalkot (1960] 2 !.LJ. 298 held inapplicable. India Reconstruction Corporation Ltd. 1953 L.A.C. 563 (Crtl.) cli:.:approYcd. 5-768SCT/77 E F G H 250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1978] 1 S.C.R. A (4) Section 19(2) does not entitle a party to a settlement to repudiate the settlement while the same is in operation. Giving advance notice within the ambit of the law is not repudiation of the settlement. [255A] B. c ( 5) The appellant's argument that since there is a power in the Government to i;;xtend the period of_ an a\vard a notice of termination prior to the date of expiry of the award cannot be conteniplated under the law and since this is the position regarding an award, a settlement cannot be treated differently, has no force. Even if an advance notice is given in the case of an award, provided the period of two months expires on the usual expiry of the award permitted
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.