Allahabad High Court
Hawkins Cookers Mazdor Union And ... vs Conciliation Officer And Another on 19 March, 2013
Author: Tarun Agarwala
Bench: Tarun Agarwala
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7178 of 2009 Petitioner :- Hawkins Cookers Mazdor Union And Another Respondent :- Conciliation Officer And Another Petitioner Counsel :- S.B. Singh,Abhinav Krishna,P.N. Saxena,Subhash Chandra Yadav,V.B.Singh,V.K. Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Prashant Mathur,V.R.Agrawal,Vivek Ratan Connected with Case :- WRIT - C No. - 60423 of 2007 Petitioner :- Hawkins Cookers Mazdoor Union & Another Respondent :- Conciliation Officer, Varanasi & Another Petitioner Counsel :- Sumati Rani Gupta,A. Rani Gupta,P.N.Saxena,S.B.Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,V.R.Agarwal,Vivek Ratan Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala,J.
The petitioner no. 1 is a registered trade union under the Trade Union Act. The petitioner no. 2 is its President. In 2004, the Union submitted a charter of demands and one such demand was revision of the wages. Negotiations were going on, and it is alleged, that the employers were deliberately delaying the settlement proceedings for vested reasons. On 28th April, 2005, a vague settlement was arrived at between the management and 120 workers out of a total strength of 236 workers on the rolls. This settlement was presented for registration under Section 6-B of the U.P Industrial Disputes Act (hereafter referred to as the Act). The Conciliation Officer/ the Assistant Labour Commissioner, by an order of 08th July 2005 refused to register the settlement. The management being aggrieved, made a representation to the Labour Commissioner, who by an order dated 23rd September, 2005 directed the Conciliation Officer to register the settlement. The petitioner, who is the registered trade union, being aggrieved by the order of the Labour Commissioner, filed writ petition no. 64192 of 2005.
During the pendency of the writ proceedings, 63 more workers also joined the settlement and started getting the benefit of the pay revision. The writ petition was eventually allowed by a judgment dated 07th August, 2007, which decision is reported in 2007 (7) ADJ 540. The Writ Court quashed the order of the Conciliation Officer dated 08th July, 2005 as well as the order of the Labour Commissioner dated 23rd September, 2005, and directed the Conciliation Officer to reconsider the matter after holding an enquiry as provided under Rule 27 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The Court held that the labour court was not sitting in an appellate jurisdiction and had no power to issue such directions. The Court further held that the Conciliation Officer was required to make a limited enquiry under Rule 27 in order to find out, as to whether the settlement was valid and that is was not brought about as a result of collusion, fraud or misrepresentation or violation or on public ground affecting social justice.
In pursuance of the direction of this Court, 37 out of 120 workers, who had originally signed the settlement and 55 out of 63 workers, who had subsequently joined the settlement, filed an application before the Conciliation Officer giving reasons for accepting the settlement under certain circumstances, and at the same time, contending that the settlement should also be signed by the trade union. The workers contended that in the given circumstances the validity of the settlement be examined by the Conciliation Officer.
It transpires that the Conciliation Officer/ Assistant Labour Commissioner made an enquiry contemplated under Rule 27 of the Rules and, by an order dated 24th October, 2007, held that there has been no misrepresentation, fraud or collusion and that there is nothing to indicate a breach of social justice. The authority further found that 183 workers out of the total strength of 232 workers had accepted the settlement and had also availed the benefit flowing from the settlement. The Conciliation Officer, accordingly, passed an order directing that the settlement should be registered under Section 6-B of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The trade union, being aggrieved, by this order, has filed the writ petition no. 60423 of 2007.
The settlement dated 28th April, 2005 was for a period of 3 years, which was coming to an end. The trade union submitted a fresh charter of demands, which led to certain negotiations and, eventually another settlement dated 29th September, 2008 was arrived at between the management and 119 workers. This settlement was presented again before the Conciliation Officer for registration in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Conciliation Officer, after due enquiry, issued an order dated 18.11.2008, accepting the settlement and directing its registration. The trade union, being aggrieved, by this registration, has filed writ petition no. 7178 of 2009.
During the pendency of the writ petition, the period of the settlement dated 29th September 2008 also came to an end and a fresh settlement dated 16th August, 2012 was arrived at between the management and its workman. The Conciliation Officer issued an order dated 15th October, 2012 directing the registration of the settlement, and, by a consequential order, the Settlement was registered on 20th October, 2012. One Mahendra Kumar Yadav claiming himself to be an elected representative of the workers, filed writ petition no. 68661 of 2012, which was dismissed by a judgment dated 15th January, 2003. It was found that this settlement was duly arrived at by 186 workers out of the total strength of 220 workers.
In the light of the aforesaid, the Court has heard Sri P.N. Saxena, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vijay Ratan Agarwal, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Vivek Ratan, the learned counsel for the management.
The ground of attack is, that the settlement was arrived at through collusion and coercion. It is alleged that this coercion and collusion can be reflected from the following facts, namely, that there was a charter of demands raised by the union, which remained pending for various reasons and that the management kept on prolonging the matter and made oral threats that they will only enhance the wages of those workers, who enter into a settlement directly with the employers. It was contended that since the employers played a trick and broke the backbone of the workers and destroyed the collective bargaining power of the trade union, the workers, out of sheer frustration, desperation and financial constraints, had no choice, but to sign on the dotted line and enter into a settlement with the management. It was urged that such settlement could not be held to be a valid and a legal settlement inasmuch as, it has been brought about as the result of collusion, fraud and misrepresentation and, in any case, it was inexpedient for the settlement to be registered on account of public ground affecting social justice.
To buttress the submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance upon two separate applications filed by 37 workers respondent and 55 workers indicating the reasons for accepting the settlement under duress and financial constraints and requesting the Conciliation Officer to examine the validity of the settlement. The learned Senior counsel contended that such settlement should have been refused on public ground affecting social justice and that the order of the Conciliation Officer accepting the settlement and directing its registration was wholly illegal and was liable to be quashed.
On the other hand, Sri Vijay Ratan Agarwal, the learned Senior counsel contended that the trade union gets a right to represent the workman and to negotiate the settlement on their behalf, but in the instant case, the settlement that has been arrived at between the management and the workers is neither detrimental to the large interest of the workers nor does it violate the principles of the collective bargaining. In law, the Union has a right to represent the workman, but the workman on his own, can enter into an agreement with the employer either in the course of the Conciliation proceedings or outside the conciliation proceedings.
In the instant case, the settlement arrived at was outside the conciliation proceedings. The learned Senior Counsel contended that a limited enquiry was held by the Conciliation Officer under Rule 27 of the Rules and it was found that the settlement was arrived at by a majority of the workers, who had also availed the benefit and that the settlement was consciously arrived at by the workers with an open mind and that there was no collusion, fraud or misrepresentation, nor the settlement affected social justice.
In the light of the rival stand of the parties, the Court finds that the issue revolves around the provisions of Section 6-B of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act read with Rule 27 of the Rules. For facility, Section 6-B of the Act and Rule 27 of the Rules are extracted hereunder:
"Section 6-B Settlement outside conciliation proceedings-(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workmen otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall except as provided in sub-section (4), be binding on the parties to the agreement:
Provided that if the period for which a settlement shall remain in force has not been laid down in such settlement itself, it remain in force for one year from the date of its registration.
(2) As soon as settlement referred to in sub-section (1) has been arrived at, the parties to the settlement or any one of them may apply to the Conciliation Officer of the area concerned in the prescribed manner for registration of the settlement.
(3) On receipt of application for registration under sub-section (2) the Conciliation Officer or an authority noticed by the State Government in this behalf, either :(i) register the settlement in the prescribed manner, or (ii) refuse registration if it considers it to be inexpedient to do so on public grounds affecting social justice, or if the settlement has been brought about as a result of collusion, fraud or misrepresentation.
(4) Where a settlement under sub-section (1) has been refused registration, it shall not be binding under this Act."
"Rule 27- Procedure for registration of settlement- On receipt of an application for registration of settlement, the Conciliation Officer or the authority notified by the Government in this behalf under Section 6-B(3) of the Act, may make an enquiry if he/ it considers necessary. If after enquiry, the Conciliation Officer or the authority concerned decides to register a settlement for which an application has been made, under sub-section (2) of Section 6-B, the registration shall be made in Form X, and a certificate of registration shall be issued to all the parties to the settlement in Form XI. If the registering authority refuses to register the settlement under sub-section (3) of Section 6-B, an intimation to this effect, together with reasons fro refusal to register, shall be given to all the parties to the agreement. The authority notified by the State Government for registering a settlement shall also give intimation of registration of settlement, settlement or of the refusal thereof, as the case may be, to the Conciliation Officer of the area concerned and to the Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh."
From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the settlement is divided into two categories, namely, a settlement arrived at outside the conciliation proceedings and a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings. A settlement arrived at outside the conciliation proceedings has a limited application in the sense that it merely joins the parties to the agreement, whereas a settlement arrived at in the course of the conciliation proceedings binds all the parties to the Industrial Dispute not only parties to the settlement, but all such persons employed in the establishment. Further, a settlement arrived in the course of conciliation proceedings with the recognized majority union would be binding on all the workers of the establishment, even to a minority union, who may have objected to the same.
The Court finds that a recognized union is eligible to protect the legitimate interest of its members and enter into a settlement in the best interest of its workers. At the same time, it does not mean that the existence of a recognized union in the establishment would take away the right of a workman or a group of workers to enter into any settlement with the management. The Court is of the opinion that a settlement can be arrived at between the management and group of workers, who may not be in the majority and such settlement, which was arrived at outside the conciliation proceedings would only be binding to such workers, who were signatories to the settlement. This view of the Court is fortified by various decisions of the Supreme Court, namely, the National Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan 2000 (84) FLR 162, Tata Consulting Engineers and Associates Staff Union Vs. Tata Consulting Engineers and Another 2002 LLR 433 and ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. Union of India J.T. 2005 (9) SC 413.
In the instant case, the settlement was arrived at between the management and the majority of the workers outside the conciliation proceedings. The registration of these settlement requires approval of the Conciliation Officer and it could be rejected, if it affects social justice or as a result of collusion, fraud or misrepresentation.
Having heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner at some length, the Court is of the opinion that the contention that the settlement was arrived at through coercion and collusion is patently erroneous. The contention that the tactics deployed by the management broke the backbone of the workers and the collective bargaining power of the trade union is patently erroneous. The Court finds that the workers have taken a conscious decision to enter into a settlement. Subsequently, other workers joined the settlement. The workers did not sign the settlement on the dotted line, but took a conscious decision to sign such settlement and avail its benefit. The oral threats has not been proved nor is made out from the record. The applications of the workers before the Conciliation Officer does not in any manner contemplate that they had signed the settlement under duress, coercion or under some misrepresentation. The Court is of the opinion that the Conciliation Officer, after making due enquiry as provided under the Rules, rightly issued an order for the registration of the settlement. The settlement was for the benefit of the majority of the workers. The Court further finds that the majority of the workers had availed the benefit arising from the settlement during the period of the existence of the settlement.
There is another aspect of the matter. The petitioner is a trade union and has no locus standi to question the validity and legality of the settlement that was arrived at outside the conciliation proceedings between the management and its workers. The law does not prohibit such settlement nor does it curtail the collective bargaining power of the trade union. The Court further finds that the workers to the settlement were not made parties in the present writ petition. The Court is of the opinion that when the validity of the settlement is challenged, the signatories to the settlement proceedings are necessary parties to the writ petition. Non- joinder of a necessary party is fatal, especially when the benefits arising out of the same settlement has been availed of by the workers in question.
For the reasons stated aforesaid, this Court does not find any error in the impugned orders directing the registration of the settlement under Section 6- B of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The writ petition fails and are dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own cost.
Order Date :- 19.3.2013 Sanjeev