Gujarat High Court
Gail (India) Ltd vs Regional Labour Commissioner ... on 9 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5755 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9154 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
yes
==========================================================
GAIL (INDIA) LTD.
Versus
REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
LD.SR.ADV.MR.KAMAL TRIVEDI WITH MR VISHWAS K SHAH(5364) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR AMRESH N PATEL(2277) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR ANKIT SHAH(6371) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,5
MR RAM MANOHAR VIKAS(12643) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 09/10/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Since the issue raised in the these petitions are similar, they are being decided by a common judgment.
2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocates for the respective respondents waive service of notice of Rule.
3. Challenging the order of Reference dated 13.10.2022 passed by the Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment (Shram Mantralaya), in exercise of powers conferred under Section 10(2A)(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the I.D. Act"), the Page 1 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined present petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Factual Matrix:
4. The Secretary, Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha - respondent No.3, served a strike notice to the Executive Director of the petitioner-Company at Vadodara, with a copy endorsed to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Centre), Vadodara, on 25.06.2018, intimating the petitioner of the proposed strike over the charter of demands. Upon receipt of the said strike notice, the dispute came to be seized in conciliation, and notices were issued by respondent No.1 to the present petitioner and respondent No.3, fixing the conciliation proceedings on 10.07.2018. Subsequently, the conciliation proceedings were held on 10.07.2018, 07.08.2018, 11.09.2018, 23.10.2018, 29.11.2018, and 16.12.2022.
4.1. Earlier, a Memorandum of Settlement (hereinafter referred to as "the MOS") was executed between the petitioner-management and the workmen employed through the contractor, represented by Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat and Gujarat Working Class Union, under Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the I.D. Act") read with Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, during the Page 2 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined conciliation proceedings before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Centre), Vadodara, on 22.09.1997, fixing its validity period for three years.
4.2. Subsequently, a Memorandum of Settlement ("MOS") was executed between the same parties on 22.06.2001 and again on 17.11.2006, and the last MOS was executed on 16.11.2011, wherein it was stipulated that all the terms and conditions contained in the MOS dated 22.06.2011 would remain unaltered. The said MOS dated 16.11.2011 was valid for a period of five years with effect from 01.12.2010.
4.3. Respondent No.3, before respondent No.1, contended that the workmen were being paid wages through respondent No.4 and that they were required to be treated as regular and permanent employees of the petitioner. It was further prayed that the arrangement for payment of wages to these workmen through respondent No.4 be declared illegal, unjust, improper, and an unfair labour practice.
4.4. In response, the petitioner-management, in its reply dated 10.07.2018, contended that the MOS was entered into with the Chemical Mazdoor Page 3 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined Panchayat ("CMP"), and that the members of respondent No.4 were not employees of the petitioner, nor had the petitioner exercised any supervision or control over them. As per the petitioner's record, the number of workmen under respondent No.4 was 73, and the recognized trade unions in the establishment were CMP, a trade union representing the members of respondent No.4, and GAIL Employees Association ("GEA"), both affiliated with the registered trade union Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh ("BMS").
4.5. Respondent No.3, in its reply dated 07.08.2018, contended that the number of workmen directly involved in the dispute was 70 in numbers and that respondent No.3 is a registered trade union under the Trade Unions Act. It was further stated that the union was not recognized by the petitioner-management. Respondent No.3 also contended that all the workers who were earlier members of the CMP had informed the General Secretary of CMP that they were no longer members of that union, and therefore, no decision or settlement should be entered into with the petitioner-management through CMP.
4.6. The management submitted its written submissions on 23.10.2018, contending that the Page 4 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined system of operations carried out by the petitioner, being a public sector undertaking engaged in post- exploration activities relating to natural gas, is highly sophisticated in nature and requires a high degree of specialization and technical expertise. To meet such requirements, the petitioner employs certain highly skilled professionals in its regular employment. However, for maintaining certain ancillary and incidental functions, which are non-core in nature, the petitioner avails services through contractors under the contract- labour system, whereby the contractors deploy their own manpower for such non-core activities.
4.7. It was further contended that, under the settlement dated 1997, it was agreed that the concerned workmen would form a cooperative society and that all workmen engaged through various contractors at different work centres would become members of the said society, to be governed by its bye-laws. Inter alia, it was agreed that the society would be awarded job contracts and would ensure fair wages and better service conditions to its members, including components such as basic pay and dearness allowance. It was also stipulated that the petitioner would endeavour to absorb, in its regular establishment, the Page 5 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined maximum number of such workmen subject to their fulfilling the eligibility criteria, job requirements, and the availability of vacancies, strictly in accordance with the petitioner's recruitment rules.
4.8. On 28.11.2018, respondent No.3 made its submissions contending that, as per the tripartite settlement dated 16.11.2011 between GAIL, PTWCL (respondent No.4), and CMP, the licence obtained by the society under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act is merely a camouflage created to continue the contract- labour system, despite the fact that the concerned workmen are in reality working on permanent posts in GAIL and are performing perennial and permanent duties similar to those of regular employees of GAIL. It was further contended that although the workmen are, in substance, direct employees of GAIL, their wages and other emoluments are being paid through respondent No.4-society, which acts as a conduit for such payments.
4.9. On 27.05.2019, the petitioner submitted that, despite the pendency of conciliation proceedings, Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha (GMS) had filed Special Civil Application No.9401 of 2019 before this Court, Page 6 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined contending that the petitioner should absorb the concerned workmen in accordance with the settlement dated 16.11.2011. In response, respondent No.3, vide submission dated 01.07.2019, contended that the petition filed before this Court and the demand raised through the strike notice were altogether different and distinct. It was clarified that in Special Civil Application No.9401 of 2019, the Union had challenged Recruitment Notification No.5 of 2018, which, according to respondent No.3, did not fall within the jurisdiction of the labour authorities.
4.10.Subsequently, on 25.02.2020, the petitioner submitted that one section of PTWCL (respondent No.4) had approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.9401 of 2019, seeking a direction against GAIL for absorption and regularization from the date of their initial engagement with consequential benefits. It was further stated that out of 68 members of respondent No.4, only 44 members were parties to the said writ petition, and therefore, in respect of the remaining members, the process of wage revision could be considered only after compliance with the aforesaid stipulations and upon due intimation to this Court.
Page 7 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined 4.11.On 16.12.2022 submissions was made by the petitioner that the other petition is filed being Special Civil Application No. 3191 of 2022 seeking certain reliefs regarding subject IDs pending and ultimately the failure report was submitted by the authority and the impugned order of Reference came to be passed which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
5. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kamal Trivedi assisted by learned Advocate Mr. Vishwas Shah for the petitioner and learned Advocates Mr. Ankit Shah, Mr. Amresh Patel, and Mr. Ram Manohar Vikas for the respondents.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER.
6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kamal Trivedi submitted that the order of Reference dated 30.10.2022 is bad in law and unsustainable, inasmuch as, under Section 19(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the I.D. Act"), the Memorandum of Settlement ("MOS") executed between the parties continues to remain binding until the expiry of two months from the date on which a written notice expressing intention to terminate the settlement is given by one of the parties to the other. Admittedly, no such notice of Page 8 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined termination has been issued by either party, i.e., by the Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha (GMS) or by the petitioner. The MOS originally came into force on 01.12.1997, and the last MOS was executed on 16.11.2011, which remained valid up to 31.03.2023.
6.1. In absence of any written notice terminating the settlement, as contemplated under Section 19(2) of the I.D. Act, the MOS dated 16.11.2011 continues to bind the parties. It is, therefore, submitted that by the learned senior advocate Mr.Trivedi that by way of the impugned order of Reference, the dispute which already stood settled under the MOS cannot be reopened, as doing so would frustrate the very object and essence of a settlement under Section 2(p) of the I.D. Act, which was duly executed before the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner, Vadodara.
6.2. It is further submitted by the learned senior advocate Mr.Trivedi that both the society and the Union have derived benefits under the said MOS throughout its operative period, and hence, they are estopped from raising a dispute contrary to the binding settlement, particularly in the absence of compliance with the mandatory requirement of Section 19(2) of the I.D. Act. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Trivedi also drew attention to the Page 9 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined fact that in Special Civil Application No. 9401 of 2019, the respondent Union itself had approached this Court seeking enforcement of the very same settlement. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that at any stage there existed any intention to terminate the said settlement.
6.3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Trivedi further contended that there exists no employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the workmen employed by respondent No.4, who are admittedly contractual employees. In the absence of any master-servant relationship, no order of Reference could have been made. The contract workmen are on the payroll of respondent No.4- Society and are being paid substantial emoluments, with most of them earning more than ₹50,000/- per month. The said contract workmen, about 60 in number, are engaged as peons, dispatch-men, water-boys, etc., on a purely contractual basis within the petitioner's establishment. The nature of their duties is entirely distinct from those performed by regular employees of the petitioner; hence, no comparison between the two categories can be drawn.
6.4. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Trivedi that respondent No.3-Union (GMS) has Page 10 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined no right to claim regularization or wage revision when it has already approached this Court in Special Civil Application No. 9401 of 2019 seeking quashment of recruitment and shortlisting of candidates, thereby admitting that the workmen concerned were not regular employees of the petitioner.
6.5. It is submitted by the learned senior advocate Mr.Trivedi that the MOS was in force between the parties and in response to the advertisement published several contract workmen on the payroll of the respondent No.4-Society have participated in the recruitment process and have got the chance to complete for recruitment and some of them were resultantly recruited also. Learned senior advocate Mr.Trivedi submits that the petitioner has followed the fair and transparent recruitment process by filling up vacancies from time to time and therefore the contract workmen who failed in recruitment process are stopped from seeking the relief through intervention of Regional Labour Commissioner Centre, Vadodara. The recruitment process was conducted in the year 2001, 2010 and 2014 and eligible employees were recruited and they were absorbed in the company. It is submitted by the learned senior Page 11 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined advocate Mr.Trivedi that the petitioner has enforced the MOS dated 16.11.2011 in true letter and spirit by considering three factors (i) the periodical revision in the quantum of basic pay wages, (ii) periodical rise in the amount of Dearness Allowance and (iii) from 16.11.2011 till date 36 contract workmen have succeeded in competing the recruitment process and 60 workmen were failed in clearing the recruitment process.
6.6. It is submitted by the learned senior advocate Mr.Kamal Trivedi that no any disadvantages were caused to the contractual employees and therefore so called industrial unrest being shown at the behest of respondent No.3 was not required to be referred to the learned Court for adjudication.
6.7. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kamal Trivedi further submitted that respondent No.4-Society, the contractor, had erroneously claimed excess payment towards Dearness Allowance in violation of the terms of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 16.11.2011. In view of such violation, the petitioner has instituted a Civil Suit for recovery of an amount of ₹5,23,54,143/-, being Special Civil Suit No.30 of 2022, which is presently pending adjudication. The petitioner's action for recovery of Page 12 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined 20% of the said amount came to be challenged before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.16787 of 2022, wherein this Court, vide order dated 29.08.2022, was pleased to grant stay against further recovery. The said petition is also pending for adjudication before this Court.
6.8. Learned senior advocate Mr.Kamal Trivedi has relied on the following decisions in support of above contention and has prayed to allow these petition by setting aside the order dated 13.10.2022 and 09.02.2023.
(1) M/s.Shukla Manseeta Industries Private Ltd. vs. The Workmen Employed under it, reported in (1977) 4 SCC 31 (2) Barauni Refinery Pragatisheel Shramik Parishad vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., reported in (1991) 1 SCC 4 (3) P.Virudhachalam & Ors. vs. Management of Lotus Mills & Anr., reported in (1998) 1 SCC 650 (4) Management of the Bangalore Woollen, Cotton & Silk Mills Co.Ltd. vs. Workmen and Anr., reported AIR (1968) SC 585 (5) The Indian Link Chain Manufacturers Ltd. vs. The Workmen, reported in AIR (1971) SC 343 (6) M/s.Bharat textile Works vs. Workmen of M/s.
Bharat Textile Works & Anr., reported in 1993 SCC OnLine Guj. 84.
(7) Employers of Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. The Workmen & Anr, reported in (1974) 3 SCC 167 Page 13 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined (8) National Engineering Industries Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan & ors., reported in (2000) 1 SCC 371 (9) ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2005) 12 SC 738 SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
7. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Amresh Patel appearing for respondent No.3 submitted that the contention raised by the petitioner, namely whether the strike-cum-demand notice dated 25.06.2018 qualifies as a notice under Section 19(2) of the I.D. Act, is a question of fact which is required to be adjudicated by the learned Industrial Tribunal under the provisions of the said Act. Hence, the petitions filed on this ground deserve to be dismissed at the threshold.
7.1. It is further submitted by learned advocate Mr. Patel that upon issuance of the strike-cum-demand notice, the Conciliation Officer had specifically inquired with both parties regarding the existence of any settlement, and only after such inquiry, when both parties stated that no settlement was in force, the conciliation proceedings were initiated and concluded. The strike-cum-demand notice itself specifically mentioned the period of notice as contemplated under law.
Page 14 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined 7.2. Learned advocate Mr. Patel further submitted that after issuance of the said notice, several meetings and negotiations took place between the respondent-Union and the petitioner-company at Vadodara as well as at Ahmedabad with regard to the issues of wage revision and absorption, after completion of the period of the earlier settlement. Therefore, the grounds now urged in the present petitions are afterthought and have been raised only to delay the Reference proceedings.
7.3. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Patel that the fresh demands raised by the Union were based on the expiry of the terms of the earlier MOS dated 16.11.2011. The petitioner had accepted that the said settlement had come to an end and had participated in negotiations on the new demands. During the pendency of the conciliation proceedings, the petitioner-company filed Special Civil Application No.3191 of 2022 challenging the action of the Conciliation Officer in furtherance of the industrial dispute raised by the Union; however, no contention was raised therein regarding non-issuance of notice under Section 19(2) of the I.D. Act.
Page 15 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined 7.4. The Union has already filed its statement of claim, application for interim relief, and relevant documents before the learned Industrial Tribunal. The petitioner-company, while not participating in the conciliation proceedings, had accepted the existence of fresh demands based on expiry of the earlier settlement and had even held negotiations at the highest level. Suppression of these material facts before this Court disentitles the petitioner from any equitable relief.
7.5. Learned advocate Mr. Patel therefore submitted that once a Reference has been made, the learned Industrial Tribunal is seized of the dispute, and all contentions raised by the petitioner can be appropriately urged before the Tribunal. Hence, the present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not maintainable and deserve to be dismissed on this ground as well.
7.6. It is further submitted by learned advocate Mr. Patel that the present petitions involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is pointed out that the petitioner has not annexed a copy of the strike- cum-demand notice dated 25.06.2018, which Page 16 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined forms the very foundation of the initiation of the conciliation proceedings. By deliberately omitting the said document, the petitioner has suppressed the material record reflecting its active and willful participation in the conciliation process initiated on the basis of the said notice issued by respondent No.3.
7.7. Learned advocate Mr. Patel submitted that the said strike-cum-demand notice specifically records that the concerned workmen have been continuously employed for several years, many of them for more than two decades, and therefore sought that they be treated as regular and permanent workmen of the petitioner-company. It is further submitted that the notice issued by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) under Section 12 of the I.D. Act was duly received by the petitioner-company, and the petitioner had submitted its reply thereto without raising any objection as to the existence of an industrial dispute. However, for the first time in the present writ petitions, the petitioner has raised the contention regarding the alleged non-issuance of notice under Section 19(2) of the I.D. Act.
7.8. Learned advocate Mr. Patel further submitted Page 17 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined that the first conciliation meeting was held on 10.07.2018 at Vadodara, wherein the respondents were represented through their Union and the petitioner-company also participated. Subsequent meetings were held on 07.08.2018, 28.11.2018, 01.02.2019, and 06.12.2019, clearly demonstrating that the petitioner was fully aware of and had actively participated in the conciliation proceedings arising out of the industrial dispute.
7.9. It is further submitted by learned advocate Mr. Patel that the communication addressed by the petitioner to the Union clearly indicates that the petitioner had stated that GAIL is committed to an amicable resolution of the subject dispute through the mutual guidance of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Vadodara. A similar communication, placed on record at page 76/A, reflects that GAIL is willing to undertake the process of wage negotiation with the members of PTWCL with whom no such negotiation is pending before any forum. These communications unmistakably establish that the petitioner had accepted and acknowledged the existence of an industrial dispute and had willingly approached the Union for discussion of the matter by constituting a committee for that purpose.
Page 18 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined 7.10.It is further pointed out that the petitioner had also addressed an email to the Union on 25.05.2022 regarding the discussion for renewal of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 16.11.2011, wherein the meeting was scheduled to be held at GAIL, Ahmedabad Zonal Office on 09.06.2022. Another email dated 04.07.2022 records that a joint committee meeting was scheduled at GAIL, Vadodara Office on 12.07.2022.
7.11.Learned advocate Mr. Patel submitted that the petitioner had proactively participated in and hosted meetings concerning the MOS of 2011. Therefore, the contention now raised by the petitioner regarding non-intimation of the intention to terminate the said settlement is not only baseless but also appears to be an attempt to mislead and confuse the Court. It is further submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Patel that the Union had already raised fresh demands for a new settlement vide demand notices dated 25.06.2018 and 13.08.2020, and hence, the plea of non-compliance with Section 19(2) of the I.D. Act is wholly misconceived and raised with a view to mislead the Court.
Page 19 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined 7.12.It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Patel that the Reference has been made in accordance with Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the said provision does not impose any restriction on the making of a Reference on the basis of any other provision of the Act. Hence, invocation of Section 19(2) of the I.D. Act as the sole ground to challenge the Reference is vague, irrelevant, arbitrary, and constitutes an abuse of the process of law.
7.13.It is further submitted by learned advocate Mr. Patel that the Reference under Section 10 of the I.D. Act is founded on the factual existence of an industrial dispute, and the order of Reference is in the nature of an administrative action. Therefore, this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere with such an order of Reference unless there exist jurisdictional errors, irrationality, procedural impropriety, or manifest unreasonableness.
7.14.Learned advocate Mr. Patel submits that the Reference, even during the pendency of a settlement, is based on an examination of the facts concerning material changes. He further Page 20 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined submits that no specific format is prescribed or required under the I.D. Act for issuance of a notice under Section 19(2) thereof. The settlement dated 16.11.2011 was effective from 01.12.2010 for a period of five years, ending on 30.11.2015. The charter of demand regarding wage revision, etc., was issued through notice dated 13.08.2020, and subsequently, the appropriate Government referred the matter on 09.02.2023, which is more than two years after the intention to terminate the settlement was expressed by respondent No.3. Accordingly, the contention raised in the petition regarding non-issuance of notice is factually incorrect.
7.15.It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Patel that the terms of Reference, having been sent for adjudication, are required to be examined and decided by the learned Industrial Tribunal. Consequently, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the same is not maintainable. In that background, the present petition deserves to be rejected.
7.16.In support of the above submissions, learned advocate Mr.Patel has relied on the following decisions:
Page 21 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined (1) Workmen of M/s. Continental Commercial Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. Govt. of West Bengal and others, reported in 1961 SCC OnLine Cal 215 (2) Workmen of Western India Match Company Limited vs. Western India Match Company Limited.
(3) Cochin State Power and Light Corporation Ltd. vs. Workmen, reported in 1963 SCC OnLine SC 294 (4) Howrah Municipality, Howrah vs. Second Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, reported in 1964 SCC OnLine Cal 237 (5) Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. D.J.Bahadur and others, reported in (1981) 1 SCC 315 (6) Karnani Properties Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal and others, reported in (1990) 4 SCC 472 (6) Rajasthan State Electricity Board and others vs. Laxman Lal and others, reported in (1991) Supp.(2) SCC 531 (7) National Textile Corporation (APKKM) Ltd. vs. Sree Yellamma Cotton, Woollen and Silk Mills Staff Association and others, reported in (2001) 2 SCC 448 (8) Tamil Nadu terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Association vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others, reported in (2015) 9 SCC 62 (9) Tamil Nadu Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Association vs. S.K.Roy, Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and anr, reported in (2016) 9 SCC 366
8. Learned advocate Mr. Ram Manohar Vikas, appearing for respondent No.4, has filed a reply supporting the Union, i.e., respondent No.3. However, in the opinion Page 22 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined of this Court, respondent No.4 is a formal party, as the dispute is between the Union and the petitioner company, and therefore the learned advocate is not permitted to make any submissions on behalf of respondent No.4.
9. Learned advocate Mr.Ankit Shah appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 neither filed any reply nor made any submissions.
FINDINGS:
10. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the following undisputed facts, which require attention, are enumerated hereinbelow:
10.1.On 22.09.1997, a Memorandum of Settlement (hereinafter referred to as "the MOS") came to be executed during the course of conciliation proceedings under Sections 2(p) and 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the I.D. Act"), between the petitioner-company and the Chemical Mazdoor Panchayat (the Union), representing all the contract workmen, approximately 143 in number. One of the conditions stipulated in the MOS was that the contract workmen would form and register a cooperative society, to which the petitioner-company would award contractual work Page 23 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined to be executed through such society. In consonance with the said MOS, respondent No.4-
Contractor came to be formed.
10.2.Upon expiry of the said MOS, which was operative from 22.09.1997 to 30.11.2000, another MOS was executed on 22.06.2001 for a further period of five years with effect from 01.12.2000 to 30.11.2005. Thereafter, on completion of the said period, yet another MOS was executed on 17.11.2006 for a further period of five years, and on the expiry thereof on 16.11.2011, a fresh MOS was executed during the course of conciliation proceedings under Sections 2(p) read with 18(1) of the I.D. Act between the same parties, effective for five years with effect from 01.12.2010.
10.3.Under the various MOSs, the terms and conditions were agreed upon inter alia with respect to basic pay, dearness allowance, annual increments, leave allowances, and other statutory contributions/obligations. The clauses also covered revision of wages and allowances. One of the conditions incorporated in the MOS was that the Union would not raise any demand in respect of such issues during the currency of the MOS.
Page 24 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined 10.4.The aforesaid MOS was signed by four office bearers, including the President of the Chemical Mazdoor Panchayat. However, several contract workmen denied being members of the said Union, leading to the formation of another Union, namely Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha (hereinafter referred to as "the GMS"), respondent No.3 herein.
10.5.Respondent No.3 issued a strike-cum-demand notice dated 25.06.2018, demanding that the contract workmen engaged through respondent No.4-Contractor and working in the petitioner- company be treated as regular and permanent employees of the petitioner-company, with all consequential benefits including parity in pay and service conditions. The notice also stated that failure to comply would result in a strike.
10.6.Ultimately, on 13.10.2022, respondent No.1 passed an order of Reference referring the industrial dispute raised by respondent No.3- Union, seeking regularization of all contract workmen as regular employees of the petitioner- company. The said reference was made to the learned Industrial Tribunal (Central) for adjudication, which is the subject matter of challenge in Special Civil Application No.5775 of Page 25 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined 2023.
10.7.The respondent No.1 has also passed another order of Reference, referring the dispute pertaining to wage revision and other allied benefits to the learned Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, which is the subject matter of challenge in Special Civil Application No.9154 of 2023.
MOOT QUESTIONS:
11. The following moot questions arise for consideration by this Court:
1.Whether the notice under Section 19(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D.Act) was validly issued; and Before this Court to decide the issue is whether the notice under section 19(2) of the I.D.Act was validly issued or not? It would be appropriate to refer the section 19 of the I.D.Act, which is reproduced hereinbelow:
"19. Period of operation of settlements and awards.--(1) A settlement 8*** shall come into operation on such date as is agreed upon by the parties to the dispute, and if no date is agreed upon, on the date on which the memorandum of the settlement is signed by the parties to the dispute.
(2) Such settlement shall be binding for such period as Page 26 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined is agreed upon by the parties, and if no such period is agreed upon, for a period of six months 9 [from the date on which the memorandum of settlement is signed by the parties to the dispute], and shall continue to be binding on the parties after the expiry of the period aforesaid, until the expiry of two months from the date on which a notice in writing of an intention to terminate the settlement is given by one of the parties to the other party or parties to the settlement.
[(3) An award shall, subject to the provisions of this section, remain in operation for a period of one year [from the date on which the award becomes enforceable under section 17A]: Provided that the appropriate Government may reduce the said period and fix such period as it thinks fit:"
Provided further that the appropriate Government may, before the expiry of the said period, extend the period of operation by any period not exceeding one year at a time as it thinks fit so, however, that the total period of operation of any award does not exceed three years from the date on which it came into operation .
(4) Where the appropriate Government, whether of its own motion or on the application of any party bound by the award, considers that since the award was made, there has been a material change in the circumstances on which it was based, the appropriate Government may refer the award or a part of it [to a Labour Court, if the award was that of a Labour Court or to a Tribunal, if the award was that of a Tribunal or of a National Tribunal] for decision whether the period of operation should not, by reason of such change, be shortened and the decision of [Labour Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be] on such reference shall, [***] be final.Page 27 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined (5) Nothing contained in sub-section (3) shall apply to any award which by its nature, terms or other circumstances does not impose, after it has been given effect to, any continuing obligation on the parties bound by the award.
(6) Notwithstanding the expiry of the period of operation under sub-section (3), the award shall continue to be binding on the parties until a period of two months has elapsed from the date on which notice is given by any party bound by the award to the other party or parties intimating its intention to terminate the award.
[(7) No notice given under sub-section (2) or sub-section (6) shall have effect, unless it is given by a party representing the majority of persons bound by the settlement or award, as the case may be.]]"
Sub-sections (1) and (2) dealt with the commencement and period of operation of a settlement arrived at during proceedings before the Conciliation Officer or Board of Conciliation.
Sub-sections (3) to (6) pertain to the period of operation of an award, with the period of one year mentioned in Section 19(3) commencing from the date of the award and not covering any antecedent period.
Sub-section (7) stipulates that for a notice of termination to be effective, it must be given by a party representing the majority of persons bound Page 28 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined by the settlement or award, as the case may be.
11.1.Thus, the statutory scheme emphasizes that only a properly issued notice by the majority party can validly terminate a settlement, ensuring clarity and binding effect before any dispute can be reopened. Main ground for challenge in the petition is that the statutory requirement under section 19(2) of the I.D.Act, which mandates issuance of notice intimating the intention to terminate the settlement was not complied with. As against the same, it is contended that the strike-cum-demand notice could be construed as the notice under section 19(2) of the I.D.Act. If one would refer the strike-cum-demand notice dated 25.06.2018 submitting the following charter of demand:
"a. The Workmen who are engaged through Respondent No. 4 - Progressive Technical Workers Co-Operative Limited on behalf of Petitioner at various plants and places in Gujarat State are performing various kind of work activities which is of permanent and perennial nature. Therefore all the benefits ought to have been paid to these workmen at par with the regular and permanent employees of Petitioner and the concerned workmen i.e. engaged through Respondent No. 4 are required to be treated Page 29 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined as the regular and permanent workmen of Petitioner.
b. All the concerned workmen covered in the charter of demand should be absorbed along with other workmen who have been absorbed as regular and permanent workmen by Petitioner from the Society and being paid by the Petitioner be treated and absorbed as regular workmen from the first date of absorption and regularization of these workmen and be paid equivalent pay, pay scales and all other benefits being paid to these workmen and arrears arising out of the absorption and regularization with retrospective effect shall be paid in reasonable time with 12% interest per annum."
11.2.Earlier settlement which is executed between the parties, there was a specific clause providing for the benefits of absorption in the company was not disputed by any of the parties and clause (7) which is relevant for consideration is reproduced hereinbelow:
"7. Management would endeavour to recruit in the GAIL and/or its subsidiary companies, average 10% of the workmen populace who are covered in the Para II (6) of this agreement and meet the job specification(s) as per the GAIL Recruitment Rules/Policy as applicable, on yearly basis. Such Page 30 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined members, who meet job specifications for notified vacancies in terms of GAIL Recruitment Rules, will be given preference for recruitment. However, Co- operative member, who do not accept offer of appointment so issued, shall not to be covered under the instant provision."
12. Parties also not dispute with regard to the signatures or tripartite settlement, which was executed including PTWCL i.e. respondent Nos.4 and the respondent No.3. There was also clause with regard to the wage revision, which also requires to be reproduced for the consideration of dispute which is hereinbelow:
"1.Revised Basic Pay: The revised structure for Unskilled, Skilled, Highly Skilled and Supervisory categories of personnel as on 1st December, 2010 will be as under:
Category Revised Basic Pay (Rs.)
Unskilled 10440/-
Skilled 11080/-
Highly Skilled 12530/-
Supervisory 13210/-
2. Dearness Allowance: Dearness Allowance (DA) as drawn on 30.11.2010 has been merged with the extant Basic Pay. Further, Dearness Allowance will be determined by the quarterly change in AICP Index. Accordingly, rate of DA would be zero for the quarter ending on 31.12.2010. From 1st January, 2011 (AICPI=176.66), the % raise in the DA will be equal to the change in AICP Index on quarterly Page 31 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined basis (i.e. w.e.f. 1st January; 1st April, 1st July and 1st October every year).
3. Annual Increment: Annual Increment @ 2.5% of the Basic Pay.
4. Other Payments/Allowances:
(i) Rate of allowance for various categories of personnel will be as under w.e.f. 1st December, 2010:
Category Other Payments/Allowances Unskilled/Skilled 40% of the Basic Pay Highly Skilled/ Supervisory 45% of the Basic Pay
(ii) House Rent Allowance (HRA): House Rent Allowance @ 10% of extant Basic Pay will be admissible w.e.f. 1 st December, 2010.
(iii) Existing Personal Allowance being allowed to select Workmen of Progressive Society will continue.
5.Statutory Payments/Contributions:
(i) Statutory Payments/contributions will be paid @ 46.69% of Basic Pay and Dearness Allowance as stated below:
(i.a) Provident Fund (PF) :13.61%
(Incl., admin, charges)
(i.b.) ESI (wherever applicable) :4.75%
(i.c.) Bonus :20%
(i.d.) Leave Salary :8.33%
(ii) Gratuity: The society will subscribe Gratuity policy from Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) and GAIL will reimburse premium towards Gratuity on actual basis arrived at by actuarial valuation by LIC in terms of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972."Page 32 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined
13. It is also not in dispute that after the issuance of the strike-cum-demand notice and initiation of the proceedings, a writ petition came to be filed before this Court being Special Civil Application No. 9401 of 2019, claiming the benefit of absorption pursuant to the settlement dated 16.11.2011. This clearly demonstrates that it was never the intention of the parties to terminate the settlement dated 16.11.2011 on the day when charter of demand issued i.e. 25.06.1998.
14. At this stage, the reference of the decision relied by the learned advocates for the respective parties are required to be made, which is discussed hereinbelow:
14.1. The Apex Court in the case of M/s. Shukla Manseeta Industries Private Ltd. (supra) has held that a settlement shall remain binding for such period as may be agreed upon between the parties, and if no specific period is mentioned, it shall be binding for a period of six months from the date on which the settlement is signed by the parties. It has been further held that, with regard to the period of operation of a settlement, Section 19(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 confers statutory continuity upon a settlement, which continues to operate even after the expiry of the agreed period until the expiry of two Page 33 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined months from the date on which a written notice of intention to terminate the settlement is given by either party to the other. Even where a period is fixed in the settlement, the settlement continues to remain operative for the entire fixed period and also thereafter, until one of the parties serves a written notice expressing its intention to terminate the same and the period of two months thereafter expires. The object of Section 19(2) of the I.D. Act is to ensure industrial peace, harmony, and cordial relations between the parties during the agreed period of settlement and, by statutory extension, beyond that period until validly terminated. The legislative intent behind the provision is to prohibit any agitation or dispute concerning matters already settled, during the period specified under Sections 19(2) and 19(6) of the I.D. Act respectively. In order to avoid uncertainty and speculation, Section 19 prescribes a definite terminus a quo and terminus ad quem, meaning that even in the absence of a specified duration, or upon the expiry of the fixed duration, the settlement continues to operate in law until the lapse of two months from the date of a clear written notice of termination.
14.2. The Apex Court, in the case of Barauni Refinery Pragatisheel Shramik Parishad (supra), has held that a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings stands on the same footing as an award made by an adjudicatory authority. It has Page 34 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined been further clarified that when a settlement has been duly arrived at between the workmen and the management, and the same continues to remain in force, both parties are bound by its terms and conditions. It is only upon valid termination of such settlement that either party can raise an industrial dispute for fresh adjudication. A similar principle has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Virudhachalam and Others (supra), wherein it has been held that as long as the settlement remains operative, the parties are estopped from raising any fresh dispute on the same subject matter. Further, in Management of the Bangalore Woollen, Cotton & Silk Mills Co. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court held that the termination of an award must be with reference to a definite and ascertainable date so as to enable the Court to conclusively determine whether the party giving such intimation has, in fact, expressed its intention to terminate the award. Such certainty regarding the date of termination is indispensable for determining the validity and effectiveness of the notice of termination under the Act.
14.3. This Court has also taken into consideration the decision rendered by this Court in M/s. Bharat Textile Works (supra), wherein it has been held that, in the absence of a valid termination of the settlement, no fresh demand can be raised. It has further been observed that merely serving a charter of demand would not, by itself, establish that the Union Page 35 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined had terminated the previous award. The factors such as the workmen subsequently proceeding on strike or the employer's participation in the conciliation proceedings were held to be of no consequence in determining termination of settlement. It was also emphasized that the intention to terminate the award must be clearly established with reference to a definite and specific date.
14.4. This Court has also referred to the decision rendered by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Workmen of M/s. Continental Commercial Company Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein it has been held that no specific form of notice is prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act or the Rules framed thereunder for terminating an agreement of the nature contemplated under Section 19(2) of the I.D. Act.
Therefore, a charter of demand may be treated as a notice under Section 19(2) of the I.D. Act, provided that the said charter of demand clearly conveys the intention to terminate the existing settlement.
14.5. This Court has also referred to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Cochin State Power and Light Corporation Ltd. (supra), wherein it has been held that the termination of a settlement may also be implied and that it is not necessary to issue an express notice for such termination.
14.6. This Court has also referred to the decision Page 36 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra), wherein it is held that the spirit of conciliation and the foundation of a settlement are required by law to bind the parties for the period prescribed. Immediate re-agitation regarding matters covered by the settlement is prohibited. Any breach of the terms is made punishable under section 29, and certainty in industrial relations is essential for the industry; such certainty is ensured by section 19(2) of the I.D. Act.
14.7. The Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Association (supra) held that effect of the settlement would be remained until the new settlement comes in force.
15. Under section 19(2) of the I.D. Act, the requirement of notice is an express written communication terminating the settlement, and cannot be satisfied by tacit or implied conduct. As such, the law does not permit waiver of this statutory requirement by mere participation in proceedings or conduct. Merely serving a charter of demand does not demonstrate that the Union has terminated the previous settlement and does not fulfill the requirements of section 19(2) or section 19(6) of the I.D. Act. Discussions between the employer and employee or demands made by another Union Page 37 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined cannot be treated as termination of the settlement.
16. The contention was raised by the learned advocate for the respondent that by non-raising the objections or while participating in conciliation proceedings it can be said that the petitioner has waived the requirement of formal written notice.
17. At this stage the reference of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Employers of Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. (supra), wherein it was held that participation in conciliation proceedings by the management, even on a subsequent date, is of no legal significance in itself. The Court observed that when a strike is on, it is obligatory for the conciliation officer to initiate conciliation proceedings, and the management's proper participation in such proceedings does not imply that any previous award or settlement has been terminated.
18. In the considered opinion of this Court on referring the above decision as the law does not permit waiver of the statutory requirement by mere participation in the proceedings or conduct, the discussion between the employer and employee cannot be treated as a termination of settlement and by participating in the meetings cannot itself construed an intention to terminate the settlement or Page 38 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined award.
19. The another contention raised by the learned advocate for the respondent that by issuing the charter of demands the requirement of section 19(2) has been satisfied on referring the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the cases of Management of the Bangalore Woollen, Cotton & Silk Mills Co. Ltd. (supra), The Indian Link Chain Manufacturers Ltd. (supra), and M/s. Bharat Textile Works (supra) as well as on referring the charter of demand which is referred hereinabove one cannot emerge that any reference to the existing settlement dated 16.11.2011 is made and therefore, intention to terminate the settlement was ever conveyed.
20. It was further contended by the learned advocate that as there is no prescribed format for notice under section 19(2) therefore, even if communications exchanged between the parties were sufficient to satisfy statutory requirement. To examine the said contention, if one would refer the communications, which are part of the memo of the petitions then it emerges as under:
25.04.2017: US Bedia, H.R. of the petitioner company, addressed the Secretary of PTWCL, requesting extension of the existing settlement dated 16.11.2011 for a further five years w.e.f. 15.11.2016 on the same terms and conditions.
02.05.2017: PTWCL informed the petitioner that CMP Page 39 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined along with PTWCL were willing to renegotiate a new MOS within the framework of the existing settlement, with some revisions to account for the next five years' service conditions and employee status with GAIL.
06.03.2018: The company wrote to PTWCL stating that they had not received the signed MOS and requested the Union to sign by 10.03.2018, indicating that continued silence would be taken as lack of interest in continuing the arrangement.
14.03.2018: PTWCL emailed the company regarding signing of the MOU, referencing meetings held on 09.11.2017 and 20.01.2018 at Vadodara, noting the demand for absorption in GAIL, which received no response.
19.01.2018: Secretary, PTWCL, wrote to Deputy General Manager, H.R., GAIL, Vadodara, stating that the MOU would not be entered without a guarantee of absorption/regularization of 73 workmen. The draft MOU mentioned the term up to 31.03.2019, but it was signed only by the company and not by PTWCL.
05.02.2018: H.R. Manager of the company requested PTWCL to sign the MOU to allow comprehensive deliberations and arrive at finality by 31.03.2019.
22.02.2018: The company forwarded an email reiterating that the MOS was prepared based on Page 40 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined discussions on 09.11.2017 and 20.01.2018, to be signed by CMP-PTWCL office bearers before 21.01.2018, which was not done.
20.1. On examining the above communications it is evident that nothing in these communications conveys any intention to terminate the settlement and therefore, the said ground also would help the respondent or suggest any fulfillment of requirement under section 19(2) of the I.D.Act.
21. From the above discussion and the decisions referred to, it emerges that no specific form is prescribed for terminating a settlement under section 19(2) of the I.D.Act. What is required is to see whether the provisions of section 19(2) were complied with, and whether in substance a notice of termination was given. Such notice can, in appropriate circumstances, be inferred from correspondence between the parties or from a charter of demands, provided there is certainty regarding conveying intention to terminate settlement and the date on which the notice can be said to have been given. This is essential because a settlement, even after such notice, continues to operate for two months from the date of notice.
22. The last contention raised by the learned advocate for the respondent regarding the maintainability of the Page 41 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined petition, same can be examined with reference to the Apex Court's decisions in National Engineering Industries Ltd. (supra) and ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd. (supra). It is held that the validity of a reference can be examined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the following circumstances:
1. Manifest absence of dispute or futility of reference: When it is manifestly clear that no industrial dispute exists, or the reference is futile on a bare reading of the terms of reference and admitted facts for instance, when the reference does not refer to any existing or apprehended dispute, or does not refer to any demand or claim made by the Union.
2. Improper consideration of facts: When the appropriate government considers irrelevant facts or fails to take into account relevant facts in making the reference, or the opinion formed by the appropriate government suffers from non-
application of mind.
3. Violation of statutory requirements or legal principles: When the reference ignores statutory requirements, travels outside the ambit of the Act, suffers from a misconception of law, or when the real dispute has not been referred because vital material submitted by the management has not been considered.
23. In the opinion of this Court, the case of the Page 42 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5755/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined petitioner would fall under the criteria (3), which is referred above therefore, this Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction can certainly interfere with the order of Reference which is lacking the statutory requirement.
24. On referring the above ratio, in the considered opinion of this Court, in absence of satisfaction with regard to statutory requirement of section 19(2) of the I.D.Act the Order of Reference requires interfered with and the notice dated 25.06.2018 cannot be said in any manner to be a notice under section 19(2) of the I.D.Act and therefore reference is incompetent and unsustainable.
25. Resultantly, these petitions are allowed. The Orders of Reference dated 13.10.2022 and 09.02.2023, passed under section 10(2A)(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
26. After pronouncement of the judgment, learned advocate Mr. Patel prayed for stay of the operation of this order. However, considering the fact that the order of Reference was passed without satisfying the statutory requirements, this Court does not find any reason to grant the request for stay.
Sd/-
(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 43 of 43 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:39:32 IST 2025