Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. However, Mr. G. B. Pai, learned Counsel for the Management, placed strong reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Association of Chemical Workers v. Wahid Ali and Ors., 1980 I LLJ 276. In that case, the Conciliation Officer, in order to settle the dispute between the employer and the employees held a meeting with the petitioner-union on 7-3-1978. There was then another meeting between them on 14-3-1978 at which the employer and the other rival union were also present. Justification statements in respect of their demands were filed at that meeting. At the meeting held on 3-4-1978, the Conciliation Officer himself indicated as to which of the demands made by the first petitioner-union and respondent-3 - union were admitted by him for conciliation. A notice in writing to that effect was served by him both on the first petitioner-union and on the employer and the rival union. Thereafter, he had meetings with the employer, the first petitioner on 14th and 17th April 1978 at which he tried to explore the possibility of a settlement. Then on the adjourned date, he had a meeting with the employer and the other rival union, and that meeting was fruitful and resulted in a settlement between the employer and the rival union. These facts go to show that the Conciliation Officer who initiated the conciliation on 17-4-1978 continued his efforts till 22-4-1978 and brought about a settlement in the course of conciliation between the employer and the rival union on that date. The said settlement was held to be a settlement in the course of conciliation by the Bombay High Court.

However, the facts in the instant case stand on a different footing and therefore I find little assistance from the decision of the Bombay High Court.

The second case relied on by Mr. Pai is Mysore Sugar Co. Employees' Union v. Commissioner of Labour (State Conciliation Officer) and Ors., 1968 I LLJ 491. In that case, the earlier conciliation proceedings held by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour at the instance of the petitioner-union was unsuccessful. Thereafter, the State Conciliation Officer arranged for a joint discussion in regard to the controversies between the parties and eventually on 19-7-1966 he issued notices to them intimating his intention to commence conciliation proceedings which began on 22-7-1966. On the same day, the impugned settlement was reached between the Management and the rival union. The settlement was challenged by the petitioner therein on the ground that the State Conciliation Officer did not promote the settlement.

On the facts of that case, this Court rejected the petitioner's Contention and held :

"It is not for us to decide whether the settlement is a fair and reasonable settlement. What is necessary is that the State Conciliation Officer should have been satisfied in his mind that it was fair and reasonable. We are satisfied that he was satisfied about it."

Therefore, it is the Court which has to be satisfied about the part played by the Conciliation Officer. In this case also the State Conciliation Officer who issued the notice of his intention to commence the conciliation proceedings, brought about the impugned settlement between the employer and the rival union.

19. From this discussion on the facts which are not in dispute and the law bearing on the main issue, it follows that in the present case-(a) conciliation proceeding commenced only after the issue of Annexure-C on 23-3-1981 by the Commissioner; (b) he was the person with whom the final offer of the Management was filed and in the fitness of things, he should have participated in the meeting on 23-7-1981; (c) the JLC being a Conciliation Officer, there was no bar for him to act for the Commissioner but on the facts of this case, he did not perform the duties of the Conciliation Officer as required under Section 12(3) of the Act and Rules 10 and 10A of the Rules thereunder; therefore, the proceedings on 23-7-1981 were not proceedings in the course of conciliation and hence the settlement does not satisfy the requirements of Section 12(3) of the Act; and (d) in this view of the matter, whether the word 'just' in Section 12(2) of the Act imposed a duty on the JLC to satisfy himself objectively about the capacity of respondent-5 to represent the Association does not require consideration; additionally, any determination of this question will not be proper because of the proceedings pending in the Civil Court on this point.