Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The management is engaged in the manufacture of biscuits and breads. It has been declared to be a public utility service within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act). It employs about 950 workmen. It is an admitted fact that the third respondent was recognized as the proper bargaining agent of the workmen by the management as per the recommendations of the State evaluation and implementation committee. It is also an admitted fact that some of the workmen of the management are members of the petitioner-union. The total strength of the workmen of the management consisted of permanent, temporary and about 439 casual employees. While so, in or about the beginning of 1979 both the recognized union and the petitioner-union made a demand on the management that the casual workmen should be made permanent. The management resisted the demand on the ground that in view of the fact that the Government of India had fixed the production capacity of the Madras unit of the management for the manufacture of biscuit as 3,600 tonnes per annum and it called upon the management to reduce the production gradually within the period of three years it would not be possible to regularize the casual workers. Ultimately, the matter was taken up for conciliation by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madras. The conciliation proceedings resulted in two separate settlements being entered into between the management and the petitioner-union and the recognized union on 6th April, 1979. By the said settlement the management agreed to make 439 casual workers as temporary with effect from the date of their joining duty. It is not necessary for purpose of this writ petition to refer to the other terms of the agreement. There is no dispute that this settlement was not implemented by the management. On 28th January, 1980, the recognized union made a demand on the management claiming that the temporary workers should be confirmed. The management, however, took the stand that they wanted to reduce the total number of workmen from 978 to 761 on the ground that the management needed only 575 workmen on a permanent basis and the rest on a temporary or casual basis. To this effect the management addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour as early as on 30th August, 1980. Further, on 8th September, 1980, they wrote to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour that the management would be prepared to consider the confirmation of the temporary employees, but that before the branch capacity was finalized neither the confirmation of the temporary workers nor an increase in wages could be considered. On 6th January, 1981, the management wrote to the recognized union that it would not be possible to consider any permanency for any temporary worker since the branch capacity was in question in addition to the problem of excess labour on hand. On 20th February, 1981, the petitioner-union called upon the management to confirm forthwith 396 temporary workmen. On 14th April, 1981, the recognized union addressed a letter to the Prime Minister of India stating that the management had informed them that 394 workmen would not be confirmed and that their services would be terminated with effect from July, 1981 onwards due to the capacity restraint placed by the Government of India on the management at Madras. The communication requested the Prime Minister of India to intervene and advise the management to regularize the said 394 temporary workers and also to advise the Ministry of Industries to allow the management to continue with the then allowed capacity and not to effect a drastic cut in the production capacity. A copy of this letter was sent among others to the Commissioner of Labour, Madras. On 27th April, 1981 the petitioner-union addressed a letter to the Labour Officer, Chengalpattu, stating that the stand of the management was not correct and that in view of the policy of the State Government to make compulsory permanency to all those who have put in 480 days of service, the dispute should be referred for adjudication. On 30th May, 1981, the Labour Officer, Chengalpattu, issued a notice to the parties to appear for conciliation on 15th June, 1981. On 24th July, 1981, the petitioner-union addressed a further letter to the Labour Officer, Chengalpattu, stating that the management had suspended certain workers and consequently the dispute regarding confirmation should be settled immediately. On 2nd July, 1981, the petitioner-union served a strike notice on the management in terms of S. 22(1)(c) of the Act notifying that they would organize a strike with effect from 20th July, 1981. A copy of this was sent to the Commissioner of Labour, Madras, and the Labour Officer, Chengalpattu. On 7th July, 1981, the recognized union addressed a letter to the Labour Officer, Chengalpattu. The said communication stated that the petitioner-union has no locus standi to issue any strike notice, that after verification of membership it was found that the recognized union represented the majority of the workmen and that with regard to the issue for which the strike notice had been given the recognized union was negotiating with the management and hoped to come to a reasonable settlement. The letter further requested the Labour Officer, Chengalputtu, that no conciliation talk should be held in view of the fact that the recognized union was already carrying on negotiations with the management. On 15th July, 1981, the management made a representation to the Labour Officer, Chengalputtu, with regard to the strike notice. It stated that the recognized union was the proper bargaining agent to negotiate with the management and that the management and the recognized union were negotiating the issue of temporary workmen and they expected to arrive at a settlement soon. The management also questioned the locus standi of the petitioner-union to raise the dispute or to issue a strike notice. A further representation was presented by the management to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Chengalpattu, on 24th September, 1981, as regards the confirmation of the temporary workmen. This letter stated that as a result of negotiations before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madras, in March 1979, the casual workers had been made temporary since the Government of India was insisting that the management should reduce its production level, the temporary workmen could not be made permanent, and that negotiations are being carried on with the recognized union and that the management was confident of a mutual agreeable settlement within a short time. Ultimately, the letter stated that none of the demands made by the petitioner-union could be countenanced. On 6th October, 1981, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Chengalpattu, submitted a failure report to the Government under S. 12 of the Act. While so on 14th October, 1981, the management signed a settlement with the recognized union before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Headquarters, Madras. On 15th October, 1981, the Government received the failure report from Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Chengalputtu. On 22nd April, 1982, the Government passed G.O.Ms. No. 845 stating that the Government considered that there was no case to raise a dispute for adjudication. The writ petition was filed on 20th November, 1981.

(4) The impugned settlement was also in violation of S. 25J of the Act.

4. Sri K. K. Venugopal, on behalf of the management, while advancing a contention that the writ petition was not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner-union had its remedy under the provisions of the Act, did not want to rest his case on the technical plea of maintainability and invited a decision on the merits. The learned counsel pleaded that this was not a case for intervention under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, though the management would be benefited if the writ petition were to be allowed in view of the fact that result of such a decision would be that 332 workmen who had been made permanent would be rendered temporary. However, the learned counsel argued that the settlement was entered into by the management with the recognized union which had been found to represent the majority of workmen by the evaluation committee. Further, as a result of the impugned settlement the management had entered into separate and individual contracts with the 332 workmen. If this Court were to hold that the settlement was null and void, the result would be to render in turn the 332 individual contracts entered into by the management with the 332 workmen pursuant to the settlement equally null and void. This Court should not issue any writ which may have such a far reaching consequence. Further, as a result of the impugned settlement the management had agreed to make permanent the service of 332 workmen notwithstanding their definite stand that those 332 workmen were surplus from the point of view of the management. Even as regards the fifty-one workmen who were to be discharged they were chosen not at random but on the basis of certain norms agreed to by the management and the recognized union, with reference to their performance in the discharge of their duties. Even in the case of those fifty-one workmen, the recognized union bargained for and the management agree that they should be paid a lumpsum of Rs. 6500 each as compensation which sum would be much more than what each of the fifty-one workmen would have been entitled to if he had been further additional benefits were also conferred on the 332 workmen. In view of the fact that the settlement had been entered into by the management with the recognized union on a fair and reasonable basis in view of the fact that the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Headquarters, himself found that the settlement was fair and reasonable this Court should not interfere with the settlement in exercise of its power under Art. 226 of the Constitution. On the merits, Sri Venugopal contended that there was no basis at all in the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner-union that the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Headquarters, had no jurisdiction to sign a settlement. Even before conciliation proceedings were started by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chengalpattu, at the instance of the petitioner-union the recognized union had made a demand that the casual workers should be made permanent while the management resisted the same. Negotiations were going on. The recognized union wrote to the Prime Minister of India with a copy to the Commissioner of Labour, Madras. Thereupon, the Commissioner of Labour, addressed the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Headquarters, to deal with the matter. Before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Chengalpattu, both the management and the recognized union made it clear that negotiations were being carried on between the management and the recognized union, that a settlement was likely to be reached and the petitioner-union has no locus standi to intervene and raise a dispute. No doubt, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Chengalpattu, sent a failure report on 6th October, 1981. However, before the report reached the Government on 15th October, 1981, the impugned settlement had been entered into between the management and the recognized union on 14th October, 1981. The learned counsel also repudiated the contention of Sri Prasad that the settlement was arrived at without the help and concurrence of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Headquarters, and that the latter did not play any role in promoting the settlement between the parties. The very fact that the recognized union had addressed a letter to the Prime Minister of India and also to the Commissioner of Labour, would show that even though talks were going on no finality was being reached and consequently the recognized union wanted the assistance of the labour authorities to effect a final settlement. It was accordingly that the impugned settlement was arrived at with the concurrence and assistance of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Headquarters. The learned counsel also contended that inasmuch as the Commissioner of Labour had overall jurisdiction throughout the State it was open to him to direct the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Headquarters, to deal with the matter and it could not be said that the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Headquarters, had no power to sign a settlement. Nextly, Sri Venugopal argued that there was no necessity to issue any notice of conciliation as required by rule 24 of the rules. The management being a public utility service, the moment the petitioner-union has issued a strike notice, conciliation proceedings must be deemed to have commenced. Consequently, it was open to the recognized union to sign a settlement in the presence of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Headquarters. It was the further contention of Sri Venugopal that no principles of natural justice were either involved or called for in this case. The management was bound to negotiate only with the recognized union, it was not necessary on the part of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Headquarters, to issue a notice to the petitioner-union before he gave concurrence to the settlement between the management and the recognized union. All that he had to be satisfied was that the agreement was fair and reasonable, and in this case the Assistant Commissioner of Labour has recorded that the settlement was fair and reasonable. Apart from this, as a matter of fact, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Headquarters, had heard representations of the petitioner-union also before he signed the impugned settlement.

21. The next question is whether the fact that the conciliation officer, Chengalpattu, had filed a failure report to the Government would bar a settlement being entered into between the management and the recognized union under S. 12(3) of the Act. As a matter of fact, the failure report though, dated 6th October, 1981, reached the Government only on 15th October, 1981. However, the impugned settlement was arrived at between the parties in the course of conciliation proceedings on 14th October, 1981. Apart from this, before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Chengalpattu, both the management as well as the recognized union took the clear stand that the petitioner-union had no locus standi, it was not the recognized union and that negotiations were being carried on between the management and the recognized union regarding the question of confirmation of temporary workmen. Therefore, it is not as if the Assistant Commission of Labour, Chengalpattu, had come to the conclusion that no settlement at all was possible between the management and the recognized union. In fact, the failure report of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Chengalpattu, refers to the fact that the management has made representation that negotiations were being carried on between the management and the recognized union and that consequently the management was not in a position to concede the demands of the petitioner-union. It is therefore, clear that even on the date on which the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Chengalpattu, sent his failure report as regards the dispute raised by the petitioner-union, he had made it clear that according to the stand of the management negotiations were being carried on between the management and the recognized union regarding the confirmation of temporary workmen. I have already referred to the fact that the recognized union had addressed a letter to the Prime Minister of India on 14th April, 1981, with a copy to the Commissioner of Labour and the fact that the Commissioner of Labour had directed the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Headquarters, to investigate the dispute. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government it is made clear that at the request of the management and the recongnized union, talks were held before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Headquarters, and a settlement, was arrived at on 14th October, 1981. I am therefore, of the view that the petitioner-union has not been able to establish that the Assistant Commissioner of Labour had no jurisdiction to hold a conciliation proceeding and certify the impugned settlement.

26. We now come to the contention of Sri Prasad that the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Headquarters, did not issue any notice regarding the initiation of conciliation proceedings. Under rule 22 of the rules once a strike notice is issued in respect of a public utility service conciliation proceedings must be deemed to have commenced. Further, during the narration of fact I have referred to the fact that the recognized union had addressed a letter to the commissioner of Labour inviting him to intervene in the matter and it also had taken the stand before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Chengalpattu, that the petitioner-union had no locus standi and negotiations were being carried on between the management and the recognized union. The failure report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Chengalpattu, related only to the demand made by the petitioner-union Consequently, the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Headquarters, must be deemed to be a continuation of the proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Chengalpattu, who acted under instructions from the Commissioner of Labour who had overall jurisdiction over the State and, therefore, it could be said that the proceedings conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Headquarters, was without jurisdiction. Even assuming that the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Headquarters, had held independent proceedings at the instance of the recognized union notwithstanding the fact that no notice was required to be given to the petitioner-union according to the averments in the counter-affidavit, the representatives of the petitioner-union were given a hearing by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Headquarters, on 12th and 13th October, 1981. Consequently, Rule 23 of the rules is not attracted to the facts of the case.