LexTHE SIRSILK LTD. AND OTHERS versus GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1963 March 20 448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. THE SIRSILK LTD. AND OTHERS t', GOVER.:'\ME~T OF ANDHRA PRADESH & A~OTHER (P. B. GA.JF.:-<"DRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCI!OO, and K. C. DAS Gt:PTA JJ.). Industrial Dispute-Award senl to Go•·ernment by the Trilnma/-Settlement between parties thereafter-Goi·ernment, if mu•I publ~•h the A ward -Conflict between Award and .ettle- numt-Resolution of-hzdU.Jtrial Ji.,pu/es Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) 88. 2 (p),.17, 18, 19. The facts of the three appeals are similar and the questions of law involved are identical. Industrial disputes having arisen between the appellants and their workmen the disputes were referred for adjudication. After the Tribunal forwarded their 1\wards to the Government the parties in each dispute came to scttlctnent. l'hercafter letters were sent to the Government r<'quc5ting thcn1 to \\'i1itholcl the puUlication of the Awards. The Government replied that under s. 17 of the r\ct it \\'<lS mandatory for the Govern1ncnt to publish the A, .. ·ards and they could not withhold publication. Thereupon writ petitions were filed before the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying that the Govcrnn1ent might be directed to withhold the publication. The High Court held that since the provisions of s. 17 of the Act ,,·r.re 1nandatory it \\'as not open 'to the 1 Iigh (~ourt to issue \vrits as prJyc<l for and rejected the petitions. The preo;ent appeals <\re hy \\'ay of certificate granted by the Higil Court. The n1ain contentions in the appeals \Vere that the provi- sions of s. 17 \Vere not n1andatory but we·rc only direcr.ory an<l in the alternative that even if they -.....were 111andatory some -l'ia media had to be found in view of the conflict that would arjse between an award published under s. 17 (I) and a settlement which was bind in~ nnc.ler s. I 8 (I) and therefore where there was a settlement which was binding under s. IB (I) it would be open to the Govt-rnment not to publish the a\vard., It was con- tended on behalf of the respondent that if the arg~ment of the appellants \Vas accepted it \Vould create a difficult situation in a~ :.much as it woulcl be possiblr. for one party or the other to repr.. 'iicnt to the Go\'ernment that the settlement had bec11 arrived al 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 4'49 as a re;.ult of fraud, misrepre.sentation or undue influence and !\ corruption etc. Held that it is clear on a readin~ of s. 17 and s. l 7A[ together that the intention behind s. 17 (1) is that a duty is cast. on Government to pahlish the a.Yard within thirty days of itsJ receipt and the provision for its publication is ma11datory and not rnerely directory. Waen an agreem~nt has been arrived at- between the parties, though not in the eoursc of conciliation. proceedings, it becomes a settlement as per the definition under s. 2 (p) ands. 18 (I) lays d>wn that such a settlement shall be binding on all the parties to it. If a situation like the one in the present case arises which may lead to a conflict between a se<tlement under s. 18 (1) and an award binding under s. 18 (3) on publication, the only &>Ju. tion is to withhold the award from publication. This would not in any way affect the m1ndatory nature of the provisions in s. 17 ( 1) for the Governmont would ordinarily have to publish the award but for the special situation arising in such cases. If any dispute arises as to the binding natuce of the settle- ment on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation etc. that would be another industrial dispute, whirh the Government m1y refer for adjudication and if such a settlement is found not to be binding under s. 18 (1) of the Act it will always be open to the Governmont to P"bli'h the Award which it had wilhheld. Stale of Bihar v. D. N. Ganguly, (1959] S. C.R. I 191, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDIOTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 220, 423 and 424of1962. Appeals from the judgment and order dated January 12, 1960 and August 19, 1960 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Writ Appeals Nos. 120 and 57 of 1960. 8. K. Bose and B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellant (in C. A. No. 220 of 1962). M. 0. Setalvad, S. K. Bose and Sardar Bahadur, for the appellants (in C. As. Nos. 423 & 424 of J !J62). K. R. Chaudhuri and P. D. Menon, for respon· dent No, 1 (in all the appeals). ~i11ilk Lti. v. G•1JtTnmmt ~ "'"'°'" ''""" 1963 Sii silk I ti . •. C•1¥.'7fl"l'.1nt •f Anlhr11 PurJtrh 450 SUPREME
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.