AMETEEP MACHINE TOOLSversusLABOUR COURT HARYANA & ANOTHER

768

A


                          AMETEEP MACHINE TOOLS

                                              v.
B
                 LABOUR COURT HARYANA & ANOTHER
                                  September 22, 1980
                  [V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.]

c         Industrial Dispules Act, 1947, section 36, scope of.
                           \
           The appellant company manufactures machine tools at its factory in
      Faridabad employing 250 workmen including the second resp:mdent, Sadhu
      Singh. Demands of the workmen for an improvement in the conditions of
      the service led to conciliation proceedings and a settlemen-t under s. 12 was
      recorded on June 20, .1969 by the Conciliation Officer. The settlement included
D     a provision that the workmen would not raise any demand involving further
      financial burden on the appellant for a period of two years. Before the
      expiry of that period, however, a fresh demand was raised on August 17, 1970
      by the General Labour Union asking for dearness allowance at 25 per cent.
      The management having refused this demand the workmen resorted to a
      "sit down" strike on August 26 and 27, 1970. The second respondent Sadhu
      Singh was charged with alleging serious misconduct. Sadhu Singh did not
E     participate in the inquiry. Accepting the report submitted by the Inquiry
      Officer that Sadhu Singh was guilty of instigating the workmen to go on
      strike the services of Sadhu Singh were terminated by the management with
      immediate effect by an order dated September 14, 1970. The management
      dismissed some other workm1~n also. The dismissal of all workmen formed
      the subject of another settlement under s. 12 of the Act dated November 21,
       1970 and it was agreed that the dismissed workmen including Sadhu Singh
F      •should be ;regarded as retrenched from servicei. The remaining workmen
       agreed to resume work unconditionally.       Sadhu Singh, took up the matter
       before the Labour Court stating that not being a signatory to the settlement
       of November 21, 1970 he was not bound by it. The Labour Cnurt accepted
       his plea and made its ward on September 30, 1972. It found that the domestic
       inquiry was not proper inasmuch as ·notice of the inquiry had failed to ~each
       Sadhu Singh, thereby preventing him from participating in the domestic inquiry.
G      Further it held that since Sadhu Singh had been ill from August 24, to Sep-
       tember 9, 1970 he could not be said to have instigated the strike. The
       appellant having failed before the High Court has come in appeal after
       obtaining special leave from this Court.

          Dismissing the appeal, the Court,

H         HELD : Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act provides for repre-
      sentation of the parties to a dispute. The workmen are entitled by virtue' of
      sub-section (1) to be represented in a proceeding under the Act by a member
      of the executive or other office bearer of a registered trade union of .which




                                              '.
           AMETEEP MACHINE v. LABOUR COURT (Pathak, J.)                         769

  they are members or of a· federation of trade unions to which that trade union · ·A
   is affiliated, and where the workmen is riot a member of any trade union,
   be can be represented by a member of the executive or other office bearer
   -0f a trade union connected with, or by any other workman employed in,
  ·the industry in which the workmen is employed. It is not obligatory, how-
  -ever, that a workman who is a party to a dispute must be represented by
 ..another. He may participate in the pr6ceeding himself. .Where conciliation
   proceedings are taken and a settlement is reached, it is a valid settlement and  B
    binding on the parties even if the workmen who are party to the dispute
   participate in the proceedings personally and are not represented by any of
   "the persons mentioned in s. 36(,1) of the Act. In1 the present case; (ll by
   executing a memorandum the several workmen who individually signed it
   on 21st August, 1970 bound themselves by the terms of the settlement, but as
  Sadhu Singh had not signed the memorandum nor had he authorised any
-of the workman to sign the memorandum on his behalf he was not bound by           C
   the settlement. (2) The settlement of 21st November, 19.70 can on no account
·be understood as covering and concluding the demand for recalling the order
-dismissing Sadhu Singh, as his re-instatement was never included in the charter
   of demands of the workmen which led to thll conciliation proceedings and
·those proceedings did not involve the. consideration of such a demand. In
  the circumstances, it was open to Sadhu Singh, to assail his dismissal from
  service and to contend that the settlement of 21st November 1970 did not         D
-bind him. (3) The Labour Court Was right in adjudicating on the propriety
  of his dismissal and, having found that the dismissal was not justified, in
-granting relief. [771 F-772 E]

      'CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 785 of 1975.

      Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated                    E
·7-1-1973 of the Punjab and Haryana ·High Court in Civil Writ
·No. 6677 /74.                     .
     A. K. Sen, S. K. Gambhir, A. K. Panda and Miss Ramrakhiani
for the Appellant.
                                                                                  F
     Yogeshwar Prasad, A. K. Srivastava and Miss Rani Chhabra for
the Respondent No. 2.
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     PATHAK, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against a
judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana summarily dis-                   G
missing a writ petition filed by the appellant.

       The appellant is a private limited .company which manufactures
 machine tools at its factory in Faridabad. Lt employs 250 workmen.
 The second respondent, Sadhu Singh, is one of them. Demands by
1he workmen for an improvement in tlle conditions of their service                H
lled to conciliation proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, J.947,
 ("the Act"), and on June 20, 1969, a settlement under s. 12 of the
 770                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [1981] 1 S.C.R.

.A     Act in satisfaction of those demands was recorded by the Conciliatiorr
       Officer. The settlement included a provision that the workmen would
       not raise any demand involving further financial burden on the appel-
       lant for a period of two years. Before rthe expiry of that ?eriod,
       however, a fresh demand ,was raised on August 17, 1970 by the
       General Labour Union asking for dearness allowance at 25 per cent.
 B     The management demurred, and explained that having regard to the
       structure of wages and allowances now payable under the settlement,
       there was no justification for the demand. On Augus1t 26, 1970 the
       workmen resorted. to a "sit down" strike, which continued the next
       day. According to the appellant, on August 27, 1970, Sadhu Singh
 c      instigated the workmen to "down" tools and go on a "sit down"
       strike. Successive notices by the management the same day failed to
       dissolve the strike. Charges were framed against Sadhu Singh alleging
                                                                                    .·~
        serious misconduct and a domestic enquiry was ordered. The work-
        man, it is said, declined to accept the charge-sheet and, although he
        was directed to appear before the Inquiry Officer, Sadhu Singh did
        not participate in the inquiry. On September 13, 1970, the Inquiry
 D
        Officer submitted his report to the management. According to him,
        the strike was illegal, and Sadhu Singh was guilty of instigating ~he
        workmen to go on strike, and besides he was guilty of loitering in the
        factory. The findings being accepted by the management an order
        followed on September 14, 1970 dismissing Sadhu Singh firom service·
 E       with immediate effect. The President of rthe General Labour Un10n
         thf<n pressed the management to reinstate Sadhu Singh. Meanwhile
         the management had taken action dismissing other workmen also.
         The dismissal of all the workmen formed the subject of a settlement
         under s. 12 of the Act on November 21, 1970, and it was agreed
         that the dismissed workm1~n, including Sadhu Singh, should be regard-
 F       ed as retrenched from service. The remaining workmen agreed to
         resume work unconditionally. The memorandum of settlement was.
          signed by the management on the one hand and the individual work-
         men on the other. A few days after, Sadhu Singh wrote to the Labour
          Commissioner claiming that he was not a signatory to the sett!ement
          and that he would settle his dispute himse.Jf with the management.
 G        The State Government referred the dispute in regard to the termination
         of Sadhu Singh's service for adjudication t.o the Labour Court, Roh-
          tak. While the management took its stand on the facts found in the
          domestic inquiry report and relied on the circumstance that the settle-
          ment dated November 21, 1970 was binding on Sadhu Singh, Sadhu
          Singh asserted that he was.not guilty of any misconduct on August 27,
 H
          1970. He also contended that ·the charge sheet had never been served
          on him and itherefore the exparte domes,tic inquiry was vitiated. The
           AMETEEP MACHINE v. LABOUR COURT          (Pathak, !.)             771

 Labour Court by its order dated Sep·tember 20., 1972 found that              A
 Sadhu Singh was not a signatory to the settlement of November 21,
 1970, and was, therefore, not bound by it. The Labour Court made
 its award on September 30, 1972. It found that the domestic inquiry
 was not proper inasmuch as notice of the inquiry had failed to reach
 Sadhu Singh because it had been sent to a wrong address, thereby
 preventing him from participating in the domestic inquiry. On the               B
 merits of the dispute the Labour Court found that Sadhu Singh had
 been ill from August 24 to September 9, 1970, and that was esta-
 blished by a medical certificate which, on inquiry from the Employees
 State Insurance Department, was found to be in order, and conse-
 quently it could not be believed thac the workman had instigated or
participated in the "tool down" and "sit .down" strike. In support
                                                                              c
 oB its case that Sadhu Singh was present within the factory premises
on August 27, 1970, the management placed reliance on a document
purporting to have been signed by the workmen and setting forth the
assurance that he would conduct himself properly and be of good
behaviour. The Labour Court said that if the document be accepted             D
as genuine there was sufficient reason for accepting the assurance and
refraining from taking any action against the workman. The Liibour
Court held that the dismissal was· not justified and that Sadhu Singh
was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of previous service and
full back wages.

    The appellant filed. a writ petition in the High Court against the
award, but the writ petition was dismissed. And now this appeal.

      The appellant challenges the findings of the Labour ·Court. It is
 contended that: the settlement dated November 21, 1970 was bind-
 ing on Sadhu Singh and it was not open to him resile from it. Now            y
 Section 36 of the Act provides for representation of the parties to a
 dispute. The workmen are entitled by virtUe of sub-section ( 1) to
 be represented in a. proceeding under the Act by a member of 1the
 executive or other office bearer of a registered trade union of which
 they are members or of a federation ofl trade unions to which that
 trade union is affiliated, and where the workman is not a member of         G
 any trade union, he can be represented by' a member of 1the execut1ve
or other office bearer of a trade union connected with, or by any
other workman employed in, the industry in which the workman is
employed. It is not obligatory, however, that a workman who is a
Par.ty to dispute must be represented by another. He may participate in
the proceeding himself. Where conciliation proceedings are taken and a       H
settlement is reached, it is a valid settlement and binding on the parties
even if the workmen who are party to the ,dispute participate in! the
772                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [1981] 1 S.C.R.

A     proceedings personally and are not represented by any of the persons
      mentioned ins. 36(1). That is what happened here. The evidence
      shows that the individual workmen negotiated the settlement them-
      selves and individually signed the memorandum of settlement.          By
      executing a memorandum they bound themselves by the terms of the
B     settlement. In the present case, however, while several workmen
      signed the memorandum of settlement on 21st November, 1970, Sadhu
      Singh did not. It is also established that Sadhu Singh did not autho-
      rise any of the other workmen to sign the memorandum on his behalf.
       ~nd what is of importam:e is that, as found by the Labour Court, the
      demand that the dismissal of Sadhu Singh be set aside and that he
       should be reinstated was never included in the charter of demands
       of the workmen which led to the conciliation proceedings, and those       --...(_
       proceedings did not involve the consideration of such a demand.
       According to the Labour Court, that was the ·admTitted. position, Con-
D
       sequently, the settilement of 21st November, 1970 can on no account
       be understood as covering and concluding the demand fur recalling the
       order dismissing Sadhu Singh. In the circumstances, it was open to
       Sadhu Singh to assail his dismissal from service and to contend that
       the settlement of 21st November, 1970 did not bind him. The Labour
E
       Court was right in adjudicating on the propriety of his dismissal and,
       having found that the dismissal was not justified, in granting relief.

            It is submHted that notice of the domestic inquiry was duly
       effected on Sadhu Singh and the finding of the Labour Court to the
F      contrary is erroneous. Plainly, the question turns on the evidence on      _j
       the record and we see no reason why the finding of the Labour Court
       should not be accepted. Having reached the conclusion
       that the domestic inquiry, in the circumstan.ces, was improper it was
       open to the Labour Court to enter into the dispute on its merits and
G      pronounce its award. The finding that Sadhu Singh was ill and could
       not be said to have instigated or participated in the strike on August
       27, 1970 is a finding of fact which proceeds from the material on the
       record. We are no1t satisfied that the finding shouM be disturbed.

H           Considerable re.liance was placed by the appellant on the docu-
       ment said to have been executed by the workman containing the
       assurance that he would be of good behaviour and, it is submitted,
             AMETEEP MACHINE v. LABOUR COURT (Pathak, /.)                     773


    that after executing the document Sadhu Singh went back on the              A
    assurance and set the strike in motion. We see no force in the sub-
    mission. The eyidence led by the management attempts to show
     specifically that Sadhu Singh instigated 1fue strike at 10 O' clock in
    the morning on August 27, 1970. It would not be unreasonable to
    hold that the declaration of assurance was executed subsequently. It        B·
    was an assurance accepted by the management, and, ~herefore, there
    is no reason why the management should have insisted on initiating
    disciplinary proceedings thereafter against the workman.

         In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs to the second        c
    respondent, which we assess at Rs. 2,000. The appellant has depo-
~   sited that sum pursuant to the order of this Court dated April 30,
    1974, and it is open to the second respondent to withdraw the
    money.

    V.D.K.                                              Appeal dismissed.