WORKMEN OF M/S. DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS versus MANAGEMENT OF M/S. DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS LTD.

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 886 · Decided: 17-10-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. RAMASWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

886 
WORKMEN OF MIS. DELHI CWTH AND GENERAL 
A 
MILLS 
v. 
MANAGEMENT OF MIS. DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL 
MILLS LTD. 
October 17, 1969 
[V. R.AMASWAMI AND I. D. DUA, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947) s. 18(1) and Industrial Disputes 
(Central) Rules, 1957 r. 58 (4)-Non-comp/ionce with rule-Settlement 
between 1nanageu1ent and union if binding on workmen. 
In conciliation proceedings before the Concit ation Officer, D.C.M. 
(City Shop) Karamchari Union espoused workman Shibban Lal's cause. 
On .June 18, 1965 the Conciliation Officer submitted his failure report 
to the Government. 
On June 9, 1965 a settlement had been arrived at 
between the Union and the management of the D.C. & G. Mills Ltd. The 
Conciliation Officer was not informed of this settlement before the sub-
missiop of his report. 
The settlement dated June 9, 1965 was filed be-
fore the Conciliation Officer on June 30, 1965. Pursuant to the Concilia-
tion Officer's report the industrial dispute was referred by the Govern-
ment to the Additional Industrial Tribunal. On October 6, 1965 Written 
statement was filed by the management before the Tribunal. The Kapra 
Karamchari Sangh also filed a statement of clail\l on behalf of workman 
Shibban Lal through its General Secretary along with an application for 
substituting the Sangh in place of the Union. It was stated in the appli-
cation that since the Union had entered into a settlement with the manage-
ment not to contest Shibban Lal's case, 53 out of 88 worke'rs of D.C.M. 
(City Shop) had requested the Sangh to take up this worker's case and 
the Sangh had thereupon unanimously decided to take up his cause. The 
management opposed this application. It was finally decided that the 
Sangh should represent Shibban Lal workman without its being substi-
tuted for the Union. The management then pressed its objection to the 
validity of the settlement of claim filed by the Sangh. The Tribunal held 
that the claim filed by the Sangh should be deemed to have been filed on 
behalf of Shibban Lal. 
On appeal in this Court the correctness of this 
view was not challenged on behalf of the respondent. The special leave 
application in this Court was suppcirted by an affidavit sworn by Shibban 
Lal. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
On a preliminary objection raised "on behalf of the respondent to the 
·competency of the appeal presented in this Court by the Sangh oil the 
ground that the Sangh was neither a parfy to the industrial dispute before 
G 
the Tribunal nor did it espouse Shibban Lal's cause in the proceedings 
against him. 
HELD : (I) On the facts and circumstances of this case the special 
leave application and the appeal must be held to have been filed in this 
Court by the Sangh as representing Shibban Lal who had agreed to be 
represented by the Sangh. The appeal filed by the Sangh, therefore, can-
not be considered to be unauthorised and legally incompetenf on the 
ground urged. [891 G-H] 
H 
(2) Rule 58 (4) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 
made under s. 38 of the Indusrial Disputes Act has full force of law of 
' 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
H 
WORKMEN v. DELHI CLOTH MILLS (Dua, J.) 
887 
which judicial notice can be taken. 
This rule must be fully complied 
with if \he settlement is to have. a binding effect on all workmen. [896 A] 
( 3) When a dispute is referred to the Conciliation Officer the manage-
ment and the workers' Union cannot claim absolute freedom of contract 
.to arrive at a settlement in all resl'fCls binding on all workmen. 
An 
agreement to be valid and binding 111ust cor.1ply with the provisions of the 
SU.lute and the Rules made thereunder. 
The settlement in the present 
case did not comply with'r. 58(4) which is mandatory. Therefore, under 
s. 18(1) of 'the Act read with the other sub-sections in the light of the 
definition of "Settlement.. contained in s. 2 (p) · there is no unfettered 
freedom in the management and the Union to settle the dispute as they 
plea.e so ·us to clothe the settlement with a binding effect on all workmen 
or even on ·all member-workmen of the Union. [895 B-D] 
( 4) Though the plea of non-compliance with r. 5 8 ( 4) was not raised 
by the appellant before the Tribunal if the respondent wanted to show· that 
the reference was invalid because of a lawful settlement then it was incum-
bent on tlie party relying on such a settlement to prove that it was lawful 
and Valid, rendering the reference illegal. 
It was also incumbent on the 
Tribunal ·to satisfy itself 

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