LexTHE SUPREME COURT REPORTS STATE OF BIHAR versus KRIPA SHANKAR JAISWAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
THE SUPREME COURT REPORTS STATE OF BIHAR v. KRIPA SHANKAR J AISW AL (J. L. KAPUR, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SuBBA RAO a.nd K .. N. WANOHOO, JJ.) Industrial Dispute-Conciliation proceedings-Unregistered Union-Settlement with-If binding on management-Industrial Disputes Act, I947 (I4 of I947), ss. II(a), n(6), I8(3)(a) and (d). A settlement was arrived at between the management of :\Iankatha Distillery and the workmen's union before the con- ciliation officer. The Union was not registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act on the date of the said settlement. The terms of the settlement not having been carried out by the manage- ment the respondent who was the proprietor, and the manager of the said distillery were prosecuted and were convicted by the Magistrate. The Sessions Court, on appeal by the respondent, confirmed the Magistrate's order. On an appeal to the Patna High Court by the respondent the High Court set aside the order of conviction and acquitted the respondent holding that there was no recognised union and that because the conciliation officer had visited the Distillery without giving a reasonable notice, on 18-3-1954 there could be no ag_reement between the proprietor en one side and the workmen as a whole on the other on the date and it was wrong to suppose that because some workmen had signed th.e settlement that it bound all the workmen. - Held, that for a dispute to constitute an industrial dispute it is not a requisite condition that it should be sponsored by a recognised union or that all the workmen of an industrial establishment should be parties to it. A settlement arrived at < in course of ~onciliation proceedings falls within s. 18(3)(a) and (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such binds all the workmen though an unregistered union or only some of work- men may have raised the dispute. The absence of notice under s. n(2) by the Conciliation Officer does not affect the jurisdiction of the conciliation officer and its only purpose is to apprise the establishment that the person who is coming is the conciliation officer and not a stran- ger. Any contravention of s. 12(6) in not submitting the report within 14 days may be a breach of duty on the part of the " conciliation officer ; it does not affect the legality of the pro- ceedings which terminated as provided in s. 20(2) of the Act. October I4 Slate of B-ihar v. Kf'ipa Sha·nkar Jaiswal Kapur ]. 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961] Where a fresh settlement is arrived at between the parties and all disputes are settled, then "public interest does not re- quire that the stale matter should be resuscitated". Newspapers Limited, Allahabad v. Stale Industrial Tribunal, Uttar Pradesh, [1960] 2 L.L.J. 37, referred to. Andheri Maro! Kurla Bus Service v. The State of Bombay, A.LR. [1959] S.C. 841 and Stale of Bihar v. Hiralal Kejrilal, [1960] l S.C.R. 726, approved. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 1959. Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 25, 1958, of the Patna High Court in Criminal Revisions Nos. 593 and 594 of 1958 arising out of the judgment and order dated March 3, 1958, of the Additional Se8sions Judge, Monghyr, in Criminal Appeal No. 286 of 1956. D. P. Singh and R. H. Dhebar, for the appellant. G. P. Lal, for the respondent. 1960. Octoher 14. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR J.-This is an appeal brought in pursuance of a certificate under art. 134(l)(c) of the Constitution against the judgment and order. of acquittal of the High Court of Patna. There were certain disputes between the workmen and the Management of Mankatha Distillery of which the proprietor is the respondent. On November 23, 1953, a petition was submitted on behalf of the work- men of the Distillery to the Assistant Labour Commis- sioner, Bhagalpur, which was signed by one Banarsi Choudhuri on behalf of himself and for and on behalf of the workmen of the Distillery. In this petition, certain grievances of the workmen were set out. Con- ciliation proceedings were started, and there was an agreement on December 5, 1953, which the High Court has described as • some sort of agreement '. On January 12, 1954, an application was made for the registration of the Union of the workmen of the Distillery under the Indian Trade Unions Act, and the same was registered on March 23, 1954, under the 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 3 / name and style of Mankath
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.