Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. In Bidi Leaves and Tobacco Merchants' Association v. State of Bombay [1961-II L.L.J. 663], the Supreme Court declared that certain clauses of a notification issued by the Government in pursuance of the power conferred under S. 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, as invalid on the ground that the said clauses were beyond the purview of the section

17. If this be the position with regard to Art. 32 of the Constitution the same principle will apply all the more to Art. 226 of the Constitution under with a writ can be issued not only for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III but also for any other Purpose. Here the question that is raised is whether the conciliation officer has acted in terms of S. 12(3) as explained by the Supreme Court in Bata Shoe Company case (vide supra). In other words, the point for determination is whether the impugned settlement was brought about with the assistance and concurrence of the conciliation officer or whether he merely put his stamp on an agreement entered into by the parties behind his back, and had given it a seal of approval so as to bring it within the scope of S. 12(3) and confer it with the legal effect as contemplated under S. 18(3) of the Act. In short, the question is whether the conciliation officer has been guilty of a colourable exercise of his power. Viewed in that light, I am of the opinion that the writ petition for a declaration as prayed for is maintainable. I am supported in this respect by two decisions of the Karnataka High Court. The first decision is that of I.T.C. Employees' Association and others v. State of Karnataka and others, [1981-I L.L.J. 431]. There a writ petition was filed challenging the validity of a settlement deed said to have been entered into between the I.T.C. and a union of workers. The writ petition was filed by the I.T.C. Employees' Association challenging the validity of a settlement entered into between the management of the I.T.C. Ltd., and another union which according to the management was the majority union recognized under the Code of Discipline. The contention of the minority union before the Karnataka High Court was that the conciliation officer ought not to have certified the settlement under S. 12(3) and that prior to certifying the conciliation officer had not investigated the dispute and did not even grant time to the petitioner-union to consider the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement. One of the objections that was taken before the Karnataka High Court was that the writ petition was not maintainable. Bopanna, J., held that though the petitioners are not entitled to the writ for quashing the impugned settlement, they could pray for a declaration that the settlement was not one under S. 12(3) of the Act but one attracting S. 18(1) of the Act and, therefore, the impugned settlement was not binding on them. The learned judge further observed thus in Para 8 at page 438;