Karnataka High Court
Motor Industries Co. Ltd. vs Govt. Of Karnataka And Ors. on 12 April, 1988
Equivalent citations: ILR1988KAR2305, 1988(3)KARLJ151, (1989)ILLJ88KANT
JUDGMENT Rama Jois, J.
1. These 5 writ appeals are presented against the common-order made in the 5 writ petitions presented by the appellant, in which, it had challenged the five references made by the State Government in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Act' for short), aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the writ petitions.
2. The undisputed facts of the case are these : N. G. Nagaraj, Albert Sudarshan, R. Anthony Raj, Chandrasekhara Reddy and K. T. Jagadish (hereinafter referred to as 'the workmen') were workmen in the employment of the appellant. They had been dismissed from service in the years 1980, 1981 and 1982. As certain industrial disputes with which the workmen were concerned were pending before the Labour and the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, which attracted provisions of Section 33 of the Act, applications seeking approval of the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, to the orders of dismissal from service of the five workmen were filed. During the pendency of the said applications, a settlement was entered into between the Mico Employees' Association which is the sole Association of the workmen employed in the appellant-Industry and the appellant. The major part of settlement concerned with number of workmen who had been dismissed or suspended from service during the years 1980 to 1982. At this stage it is necessary to mention that on 24th January 1981 there was a large scale violence in the factory and thereafter of on 2nd and 5th of May 1981 as many as 60 workmen had been dismissed from service, and thereafter an abnormal situation was prevailing in the factory for considerable period. After normalcy was restored and the factory began to function, a draft agreement was prepared containing inter alia the terms of settlement regarding all the dismissed workmen during the years 1980, 1981 and 1982. Having regard to fact that terms of the settlement affected several workmen dismissed from service the Employees' Union decided to hold an opinion poll regarding the terms of settlement, among the members of the Association. The notification regarding the opinion-poll is produced as Annexure 'B'. It reads :
"Mico Employees' Association Reg. No. 147OPINION POLL REGARDING THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT CONCERNING DISMISSED AND SUSPENDED WORKMEN Friends, You are aware that in the past four years the Management had initiated disciplinary proceedings against 108 workmen with the result that some were dismissed from services and some other were suspended pending enquiry. Regarding the events of April 29, 1981, 39 workmen had been dismissed. All the cases of dismissal are pending before the Additional Industrial Tribunal and the Labour Court.
On June 20, 1984 you had elected the present team of office-bearers, Members of the Executive Committee and of the General Council. We had expressed our gratitude to you for reposing confidence in us and we had assured you that we would take up two urgent matters viz :
1. Reimbursement of 8 days wages deducted on account of one day's strike and
2. Resolving matters of dismissed and suspended workmen.
With this end in view, we have put forth our honest efforts. Pursuant to our negotiations, the Management have reimbursed 8 days' wages. Out of 48 suspended workmen, the Management have already taken back for work 39 workmen. Now the Management have agreed to take back for work another 8 workmen. Enquiries are in progress with regard to two suspended workmen.
Our of 39 workmen dismissed in connection with the events of 29th April 1981, the Management have agreed to take back for work 29 workmen. In addition, another 8 dismissed workmen will also be taken back for work. Out of 107 affected workmen, 84 workmen will have gone back for work, cases will go on in respect of 11 dismissed workmen and compensation will be paid to 10 dismissed workman.
TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
1. Out of 39 dismissed workmen concerning the events of 29th April 1981, 29 will be taken back for work and compensation will be paid to the remaining 10 workmen.
2. Out of the 10 workmen those who have served for 12 years as on the date of dismissal will be paid Rs. 70,000/- and those who have served for more than 12 years will be paid Rs. 90,000/- as compensation. In addition they will be entitled to PF and Gratuity.
3. Workmen who were dismissed before 1984 and taken back for work will be paid Rs. 7,500/- and those dismissed during 1984 and taken back for work will be paid Rs. 4,000/- as relief.
4. Shri A. L. N. Rao and Shri Philips Naronha who were office-bearers of MEA on 29th April 1981 will be paid Rs. 16,000/- as relief.
5. Those dismissed workmen who are taken back for work will be identified by their previous employment number. After one year, their precious service upto the date of dismissal will be restored to them. The period of service from the date of dismissal to the date of their being taken for work will be negotiated in due course.
6. MEA agrees to withdraw Ref. No. 26/80 before the Labour Court regarding Lockout (14th April 1979).
On the unanimous decision of the Executive Committee and the General Council in favour of the package deal and on their suggestion MEA requested the Management to enhance the compensation originally proposed. Accordingly, on 30th January 1985, the Management have enhanced the compensation from Rs. 65,000/- to Rs. 70,000/- and from Rs. 85,000/- to Rs. 90,000/- for below 12 years and above 12 years of service respectively. The dismissals, where compensation is agreed, will be treated as resignations.
Dear Friend, MEA has endeavoured beyond its capacity to persuade the Management on these proposals. Though the Executive Committee and the General Council have expressed that this is a unique and historic achievement, we honestly feel that we should conduct an opinion poll and act upon the mandate given by the members. Therefore, we have decided to hold the opinion poll on 2nd February 1985 at MICO SPORTS GROUNDS between 7.00 a.m. and 5.30 p.m. and request you to participate in large numbers and indicate your "YES" or "NO" to the proposed settlement.
Yours Comradely.
2.1.1985
S. SURYANARAYANA N. VEERASWAMY.
RAO, President General Secretary
L. NARASIMHAMURTHY A. JAYARAM
Asst.
I Vice-president Secretary.
A. G. SESHAPPA
II Vice-President
SHANKARE GOWDA
Treasurer"
Thereafter as the opinion favoured the entering into the settlement, the Employees' Union entered into settlement with the management. The settlement was actually signed on 28th February 1985. The relevant clauses in the agreement are 14.1 and 19. They read :
"14.1 It is agreed between the Parties that the workmen whose names are listed in Annexure "F" submit their resignations from service and the same will be accepted by the Management, treating the dismissals as resignations. It is further agreed that these workmen will be paid, as a special case, compensation amount as indicated against each name in Annexure "F", subject to tax, in full and final settlement of their claims against the Company in regard to termination of their employment by dismissal or termination or otherwise, including the claims for reinstatement, reemployment, back wages or any other claims whatsoever. The amount mentioned in Annexure "F" will be payable only after this Settlement comes into force in terms of Clause 17. To this purpose, the parties agree to file necessary applications before the Courts/Tribunal.
*** *** ***
19. In case any of the workmen (other than the workmen who are listed in Annexure "F"), whose name is found in Annexure "A" desires to submit resignation, he will be permitted to submit his resignation within a period of 15 working days from the signing of this Settlement. In such an event, the Management offers to pay such workmen, a one time compensation, subject to tax, on the same basis as has been agreed to be paid by the Management to the workmen listed in Annexure "F". Such workmen will, in addition, be entitled to received the benefit of Provident Fund (including the Employer's contribution) and Gratuity for the period of their service, i.e., upto the date of their dismissal, as per the rules relating to Provident Fund and Gratuity and other dues if any as per rules of the company. This offer shall lapse on the expiry of 15th working day from the date of signing of the Settlement and no workmen shall thereafter have the right to exercise any option under this Settlement. Provided further that a workman exercising the option to resign shall not be entitled to any other benefits under this Settlement."
As can be seen from the aforesaid clauses of the agreement, the Management had agreed to withdraw the order of dismissal and accept the resignation of the persons mentioned in Annexure-F to the agreement and also agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 70,000/- to such of the workmen whose names were included therein who had put in 12 years of service and a sum of Rs. 90,000/- to such of the workmen who had put in more than 12 years of service. The wording in clause 19 is very clear, in that, the workman concerned was at liberty to accept the said offer if he so desired. Thereafter each of the workmen concerned in this case tendered resignation, Albert Sudarshan on 19th March 1985, Nagaraj on 27th March 1985, C.S. Reddy on 28th February 1985, R. Anthony Raj on 28th February 1985 and K. T. Jagadish on 20th March 1985. As the contents of the resignation letters are all similarly worded, it is sufficient to set our the contents of the resignation tendered by one of them. The resignation dated 27th March 1985 tendered by Nagaraj addressed to the appellant reads :
"I was dismissed from the service of Motor Industries Co. Ltd., Bangalore, on 6th August 1982. The Office Bearers of the Mico Employees Association had taken up the issue of reinstatement of dismissed workmen including myself with the Management on my behalf and had held series of discussions. I was informed by the Office Bearers of the MEA that after negotiations with the Management they had, as a package deal, agreed for reinstatement of some dismissed workmen, etc. I have gone through the Memorandum of Settlement dated 28th February 1985. My name is not found in the Annexures 'C', 'D', 'E' and 'F' to the said Settlement.
I find that under clause 19 of the Memorandum of Settlement, workmen like me, if desiring to submit resignation, will be permitted to submit resignation within a period of 15 working days from the signing of the Settlement. In such an event, the Management offers to pay to such workmen a one time compensation, subject to tax, on the same basis as has been agreed to be paid by the Management to the workmen listed in Annexure "F".
On enquiry with the Office Bearers of the MEA, I have been told that if I opt to resign under Clause 19 of the above Settlement, the one time compensation amount payable to me, subject to tax, is Rs. 70,000/-
I submit that I wish to opt for the benefit under Clause 19 above. I hereby submit my resignation from the services of the Company and request you to accept the same. I wish to state that I, as a members of the MEA, agree to fully abide by all the terms of the settlement dated 28th February 1985.
I also authorise you and the MEA (to whom a copy of this letter is being sent) to take further action as may be required in implementing the Settlement in so far as I am concerned. I also agree that I shall not raise any dispute of any nature in regard to my submitting this resignation and shall not claim any relief whatsoever against the Company.
I hereby agree that I have no objection to Management withdrawing the Application MA. 4/82 in Ref. 26/80, as settled out of Court."
After the above resignation was tendered by the 4 of the workmen, other than Albert Sudarshan, the Management made application in each of the proceedings pending under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act explaining the circumstances under which the settlement had been entered into, resignation had been tendered by concerned workmen, and had been accepted, the amount of Rs. 90,000/- or Rs. 70,000/- had been paid, and sought permission to withdraw the application in view of the settlement. Each of the aforesaid workmen made a record on the application filed by the Management that he was agreeable for the prayer made by the Management in the application. Accordingly, in the case of each of the workmen there has been an order of the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, before which the matter was pending, to the effect that the application was permitted to be withdrawn as the matter was settled out of Court. The orders made in all the four cases are similar and therefore it is sufficient to set out the order made in the case of Nagaraj by the Labour Court on 19th April 1985. It reads :
"When the matter was called out for recording of the evidence the learned representative on behalf of the applicant management submitted that the dispute between the parties has been settled out of Court under the terms of Settlement dated 28th February 1965. A Joint Memo signed by the applicant and respondent is also filed to that effect and also an affidavit is filed. A copy of the Settlement is also filed. In view of the memo filed by the parties no purpose will be served by proceeding further with this matter. Accordingly the applicant-management is permitted to withdraw this application in the reference as the same is settled out of Court. Hence, the application is withdrawn as settled out of Court. No costs...."
As far as Albert Sudarshan is concerned, the matter had reached this Court in W.P. No. 8053/83 for the reason that in the Section 33(2)(b) proceedings the Industrial Tribunal had recorded a finding to the effect that the domestic inquiry held against the said workman was defective. The appellant-Management had challenged the legality of the said order of the Industrial Tribunal. When the matter was pending before this Court, as stated earlier, the matter was amicably settled between the Union and the Management and also by each of the workmen concerned. In the writ petition a joint memo was filed by Albert Sudarshan and the Management stating that the matter has been settled. The joint memo was recorded and the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Tribunal to pass order in terms of the compromise. The joint Memorandum of Compromise reads :
"The petitioner and the 2nd Respondent submits that the subject matter of the writ petition i.e., dismissal of the 2nd Respondent has been amicably settled in terms of Clause 19 read with ANNEXURE 'A' (Sl. No. 53) of the Settlement dated 28th February 1985 in that the 2nd respondent has submitted his resignation from service. The 2nd respondent also agrees that he will not contest the writ petition or the approval application before the 1st Respondent. The 2nd respondent submits that he will not raise any dispute regarding his dismissal or regarding the submission of resignation or regarding any monetary claim and that he will not be entitled to any sum other than Rs. 90,000/- (Rupees Ninety thousand only) which may be paid subject to tax by the Company on accepting his resignation and the Gratuity. A copy of the resignation and the Settlement dated 28th February 1985 are enclosed to this memo. The parties pray that the writ petition be disposed of in accordance with this compromise memo and the Additional Industrial Tribunal be directed to dispose of the serial application No. 23/80 in AID 15/1979 as settled out of Court and dispose of this writ petition without cost."
The writ petition was disposed of in the light of the joint-memo and the Industrial Tribunal was directed to dispose of the matter pending before it in terms of the compromise. Thereafter the matter went back to the Tribunal and the Tribunal also disposed of the matter in terms of the joint memo. The order of the Tribunal reads :
ORDER SHEET "BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE Serial Appn. No. 23 of 1980 in A.I.D. NO. 15 of 1979 Applicant - vs - Opposite Party The Management of Motor Mr. Albert Sudarshan, Industries Company Ltd. (E. No. 17696/Dept. 48313) Bangalore - 560 030. KSRTC - Hospital Quarters.
Shanthinagar, Bangalore - 560 027.
Extract :
xxxxxxxxxxxx 14-5-1985 Applicant By Sri KK.
Opp. Party By Sri VGG.
Received the order passed by the High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 8058/83 and the memo.
ORDER Application is disposed off in terms of the memo.
Sd/-
(D. B. Vaidya) Presiding Officer, Addl. Industrial Tribunal, B'lore.
Dt. 14-5-85"
There is also no dispute that after deducting the Income-tax, the amount of Rs. 68,765/- was paid to Nagaraj, a sum of Rs. 74,395-60 to Albert Sudarshan, a sum of Rs. 63,319-00 to Anthony Raj, a sum of Rs. 60,634.40 to Chandrasekhara Reddy and a sum of Rs. 80,073-95 to Jagadish. Each of the workmen had addressed a letter to the Commissioner of Income-tax requesting for spreading over the amount paid in lumpsum, to different years, so that the burden of income-tax is reduced. The request was granted. Further, as the order of dismissal was withdrawn and the resignation was accepted each of the workmen was paid amount of gratuity on the basis of the total number of years of service they had put in.
After all this, the five workmen raised an Industrial Dispute before the Conciliation Officer regarding their dismissal from service, which dispute had been fully and finally settled. The appellant appeared before the Conciliation Officer and filed a statement, in which, every one of the above facts was set out and all the relevant documents which showed that dispute between each of the workmen and the Management had been settled, were produced and submitted as the dispute had been settled there was no dispute for reference to adjudication. Thereafter the Conciliation officer submitted a failure report to the Government. The Government thereafter made an order under Section 10 of the Act in the case of each of the workmen referring the industrial dispute for adjudication. Though orders have been made on different dates the point of dispute referred is similarly worded. Therefore it is sufficient to set-out-out the reference made in the case of one of them. The reference made in the case of Nagaraj on 5th July 1986 reads :
"Whether the Management of M/s. Motor Industries Company Limited, Adugodi, Bangalore-30, is justified in terminating the services of Sri N. G. Nagaraj. Operator, E. No. 68006/Dept. W. 7207 w.e.f. 27-3-1985 ?
If not, to what relief is he entitled ?
"Questioning the legality and validity of the reference, five writ petitions were presented by the appellant. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions holding that the objection of the Management that there was no dispute for reference, as the dispute had been settled, should be raised before the Labour Court and therefore there was no need to strike-down the reference. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant has presented these appeals.
3. Sri Kasturi, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted as follows :
(i) On the undisputed facts of the case, the dispute relating to termination of service of each of the workmen had been settled, in that, pursuant to the agreement entered into between the Management and the Union of the workmen of which each of the workmen were Members, resignation was tendered by each of the workmen, it was accepted by the Management, the order of dismissal had been withdrawn and their services treated terminated pursuant to the resignation, the amount of Rs. 90,000/and Rs. 70,000/- as the case may be, was paid to each of the workmen, and the settlement had been recorded in Section 33(2)(b) proceedings in the case of four workmen, and in the case of another, settlement was recorded before this Court and in the face of this settlement there were no disputes at all for reference by the Government for Industrial Adjudication.
(ii) The exercise of power under Section 10 of the Act in the present case is capricious and arbitrary as there was no industrial dispute at all for being referred for adjudication.
4. Learned Counsel for the workmen, per contra, contended that according to the workmen, resignation tendered was not voluntary, and therefore, they raised an industrial dispute, particularly, for the reason that in the case of several other workmen who had been dismissed, the Management had agreed to take them back; whereas the Management had not agreed to take these workmen back to service and this amounted to unfair labour practice. Learned Counsel submitted that in such circumstances the contention as to whether there existed an industrial dispute or not was entirely a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Government under Section 10 of the Act and once the Government formed an opinion, that there was a dispute which required to be referred for adjudication, the decision of the Government was final and this Court could nor interfere with the discretion exercised by the Government. In support of the above submission, learned Counsel has relied on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Tata Chemical v. Workmen (1978-II-LLJ-22), Veerarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu (1987-I-LLJ-209) and M. P. Irrigation Karmachari Sangh v. State of M.P. (1985-I-LLJ-519).
5. The settled position in law, as emerging from the decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court, is that in a case where the dispute relates to termination of services is raised by a workman under Section 2A of the Act, the Government cannot go into the question as to whether the termination was justified or not, but has to refer the dispute for adjudication. The Government cannot go into the very questions which are required to be considered by the Labour Court. (See : Syndicate Bank Employees Association v. Govt. of India (1985-I-LLJ-93) and Srikanth Rao v. State of Karnataka (1986-I-LLJ-197)). It is for the Labour Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be, to consider as to whether the termination of services was justified or not. It is also well settled that even in cases where termination of service of a workman is brought about consequent on resignation, if the workman raised a dispute to the effect that the resignation itself was secured under threat or coercion and by that process the termination of services was brought about, it could be treated as termination of services by the Management and the workman concerned is entitled to raise an industrial dispute. (See : Southern Roadways Ltd. v. K. Padmanabhan (1979) Lab. I.C. 234 But these are cases in which disputes had been settled before the Labour Court and this Court and there existed no dispute for reference. Even so, the Government has exercised its power make reference under Section 10 of the Act. As stated earlier, none of the facts which culminated in the recording of settlement between the workmen and the Management are in controversy. In fact, pursuant to the settlement the termination of service effected by the Management was withdrawn and a resignation tendered by each of the five workmen was accepted and each of the workmen received the amount of Rs. 90,000/- or Rs. 70,000/- and the Labour Court recorded the compromise in the case of each of the workmen. Consequently they received the amount of gratuity in full. Therefore, it is clear that dispute regarding termination of service of each of the workmen concerned and the Management did not survive, having ended in a settlement.
6. If the contentions urged for the workmen were to be accepted, it would mean that even if in a given case a dispute regarding termination of service of workman had been referred for adjudication and in the course of adjudication proceedings, settlement is recorded, like the one entered into in the present case, before the Industrial Court, still the workman thereafter chooses to raise an industrial dispute regarding the very termination of services which was the subject-matter of settlement, there could be an industrial dispute and the Government would be entitled to refer such a dispute for adjudication and even in such a case the management has to appear before the Labour Court and say that the dispute had been settled earlier.
7. In our opinion, the power of the Government under Section 10 of the Act is to refer an Industrial Dispute for adjudication. If the records produced before the Conciliation Officer show that after the alleged termination of service of the workmen concerned, settlement had been entered and had been recorded in a proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, there could be no industrial dispute at all for the Government to refer for adjudication and if inspite of such settlement the Government were to make an order referring he settled dispute for adjudication once again, it would be a clear case of acting without authority of law and such an action cannot but be described as capricious and arbitrary exercise of power or abuse of the power to make a reference.
8. Learned Counsel for the workmen submitted that the settlement was reached between the Union of the workmen and the Management, and not by the workmen by themselves, and further submitted that even on the basis that the workmen were members of the said union they were at liberty to say that the settlement was not binding on them. So far as the binding nature of the settlement entered into between the Union and the Management is concerned, we are of the view that the workmen cannot exception to the agreement. They do not dispute that they were the Members of the Union and under the provisions of the Act read with the Trade Union Act when a Union representing workmen enters into a settlement, such settlement is binding on all its members. In such a case what should be looked into is the overall advantage secured for the workmen in the settlement and no workmen can take the stand that he is not bound by the settlement. This principle has been enunciated by the Supreme Court in M/s. Tata Engg. & Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Their workmen (1981-II-LLJ-429). The relevant portion of the judgment in paras 13 and 14 at p. 433 reads :
"13. There is no quarrel with the argument addressed to us on behalf of the workers that mere acquiescence in a settlement or its acceptance by a worker would not make him a party to the settlement for the purpose of Section 18 of the Act (vide Jhagrakhan Collieries (P) Ltd. v. G. C. Agarwal, Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur) (1975-I-LLJ-163). It is further unquestionable that a minority union of workers may raise an industrial dispute even if another union which consists of the majority of them enters into a settlement with the employer (vide Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Its Workmen, ((1978-II-LLJ-22). But then here the company is not raising a plea that the 564 workers became parties to the settlement by reason of their acquiescence in or acceptance of a settlement already arrived at or a plea that the reference is not maintainable because the Telco Union represents only a minority of workers. On the other hand the only two contentions raised by the Company are :
(i) that the settlement is binding on all members of the Sanghatana including the 564 mentioned above because the Sanghatana was a party to it and,
(ii) that the reference is liable to be answers in accordance with the settlement because the same is just and fair.
14. And both these are contentions which we find fully acceptable for reasons already stated."
The Supreme Court has also ruled in Shukla Manseta Industries Ltd. v. Workmen (1977-II-LLJ-339) that a reference of dispute when the matter is governed by a settlements is invalid. The relevant portion of the Judgment reads at p. 344 :
"Any reference by Government of a dispute during the period of settlement or an award without the same being terminated under the law will be invalid."
If that is the position regarding making of reference regarding matters covered by a settlement during the period when settlement is in force, in matters falling under Section 2A of the Act, where a settlement is arrived at and acted upon there would be no dispute at all for reference. Therefore it is clear that as in these cases the dispute concerning the workmen had been settled, no dispute existed for making the reference.
9. Further it should be pointed out that apart from the fact that the settlement was signed by the office bearers of the Union, after it was favoured by the workmen/members in the opinion poll, Clause-19 of the settlement expressly made it clear that if only each of the workmen whose names were found in Annexure-F desired to submit resignation, they were at liberty to do so and if they tendered resignation and anted payment as agreed to by the Management, the management was prepared to accept the resignation, withdraw the order of dismissal and make the payment. In this case admittedly each of the workmen tendered resignation exercising the option given to him under Clause-19 and took the benefit of Rs. 90,000/- or Rs. 70,000/- as the case may be. The fact that the resignation was tendered voluntarily by each of the workmen is evidenced by their receiving the amount and the endorsement made on the application for withdrawal under Section 33(2)(b) proceeding and securing of the benefit of distribution of income-tax to different years by addressing a letter to the Commissioner of Income-tax and receiving the amount of gratuity. In the case of Albert Sudarshan the joint-memo signed by him was presented before this Court and the Labour Court was directed to record the settlement and close the matters. No one compelled them to tender the resignation, no one forced them to receive Rs. 90,000/or Rs. 70,000/- as the case may be, no one forced them to make an endorsement on the application for withdrawal of the Section 33(2)(b) proceedings before the Labour Court/the Industrial Tribunal. After having fully accepted the settlement and having derived the full benefit including gratuity, the workman has chosen to raise industrial dispute. In the face of these facts it did not lie in the mouth of the workmen to say that the settlement was forced upon them.
10. We asked the learned Government Advocate to show from the records that the Government had looked into the contents of the settlement, order of the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal/this Court, before referring the dispute for adjudication. Learned Counsel for the State has produced the records and he was unable to show that the Government had adverted to any of these facts. As stated earlier, in the statement before the Conciliation Officer, the Management had specifically referred to the settlement and it produced all the documentary evidence relating to the settlement, entered into between the Management and the workmen's Union and thereafter between the management and each of the workmen, in terms of the settlement. Without even looking into any of these documents which would have shown to the Government that the dispute relating to termination of service had been fully settled and the orders of termination themselves did not exit as they were replaced by the acceptance of resignations tendered by the workmen (the Govt. had referred). For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that these appeals deserve to be allowed and the writ petition presented by the Management have to be allowed.
11. In these cases there is every justification for imposing exemplary costs on each of the workmen; still we refrain from doing so. We however strongly deprecate their reprehensible conduct in raising the dispute.
12. In the result, we make the following order :
(i) The writ Appeals are allowed.
(ii) In reversal of the order made by the learned single Judge, the writ Petitions are allowed; and,
(iii) The order of reference challenged each of the Writ Petitions is set-aside.