Holding

The Supreme Court held that the 1957 communications formed a concluded agreement, the employer was estopped from challenging the work‑men status, and the Tribunal must decide the dispute on its merits without addressing the work‑men question.

Summary

The case arose when two salesmen, who were also union office‑bearers, were disciplined and terminated by Hindustan Lever Ltd. The union claimed the dismissals were illegal and that the employer was retaliating for trade‑union activity. The employer argued that the salesmen were not "workmen" under the Industrial Disputes Act and that a prior agreement between the parties barred the union from raising the dispute in Delhi. The Industrial Tribunal held the three 1957 communications did not constitute a concluded agreement and entertained the employer’s contention, but the Supreme Court found that the communications formed a valid, binding agreement and that the employer was estopped from contesting the status of the field‑force employees. The Court held that the principle of res judicata or estoppel could not be invoked to overturn the agreement and that the Tribunal should not have examined the work‑men status as a preliminary issue. Consequently, the Tribunal’s award was set aside in part and the matter remitted for adjudication on the merits without revisiting the work‑men question.

Issues considered

The employer’s right to contest the status of salesmen as ‘workmen’ under the Industrial Disputes Act in view of the 1957 agreement.
Whether the 1957 communications constitute a concluded, binding agreement and thus give rise to res judicata or estoppel.
Whether the Industrial Tribunal may entertain a preliminary issue on work‑men status when the employer does not raise it.
The applicability of the principle of res judicata/estoppel in industrial arbitration.
The jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act.

Legislation cited

Indian Contract Acts. 28
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 10, s. 28, s. 2(s)

Subjects

industrial disputeworkmen definitionres judicataestoppelIndustrial Disputes Actjurisdictionfield forcesalesmenbinding agreementcompulsory adjudication

Judgment

··~

307 A
."f WORKMEN OF.Mjs HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. & ORS,.

v.
MANAGEMENT OF M/S ttTNtius r AN LEVER LTD.
B-
January 5, 1984 .
[D . .J\. DESAI:'O. CHl,NNAPPA REDDY, AND. A. VARADARA;AN, JJ.]

Industrial Disputes Act 1947 ..
. Industrial Dispitte-Jurisdiction oTindu~trial trlh1~nal~Deter11!i1,1ed fro1n the o.rdrr
of reference-:--Status o,f person 1iot qu~stior1e:J hy en1ployer-TNhunal whe.tlier entit_led · C·
1!!...f~'o !ll()fU decide· as a prelin1i11ary iSsue.

Concluded Agree1i1e11t betlt'een Ma1iage111e11t and U11ion-Manafreme11t acting
on· the. agl'een1ent for so1ne )-;ea.rs-Mm1agen1ent whethcir ··zater entitled to repudiate
ancl, disown dgreen1ent-Dlffere11ce between unilateral rep1_rdiation -and tennination ·
of agree1nent Indicqted.
D
lil[lustrial dispute.\:-:Adjudication pf-Con<;_ept of res judicata-Wh~th_er apj,li-.
ble.

The appeJlant-UniOri and the respondcnt-Gomi,any through their c·ommuni-
cations dated January .. 24, 1951, April 24, )957 and May .1, 1957 :concluded an.
agreen1ent relating to .various it~ms· of industrial disp~tes which inter.Olia ptovided
. that the en1ployer had agreed not to contest the issue-whether field foice including_ E
+ salesn1e11 were not '\vorkn1en' within .the meaning of the expressiop in the Tndti.strlal
DiSputes Act.and that disputes of an ·AH-India n~ture . cotild be raised
. only at t>~lhi.

Two empioyees of the Respondent·con1pany who were· salesme.n and protected ·
workmCn with the meaning Of the expl·esSion ln the ·Tndustrial Disputes Act, 1947
and who• were office"· bearers of the union, were · cha·i·gci sheeted and ~fter a disCtp-
Jinar.y enquiry their services ~ere terminated. .The appellant-union raised an
industrial dispute-contending that the t~rmination of scrviCes of these two workn1en
F
were ille£a! and.iil"val.id, and that the enquiry was equally illegal,"and i~Propc!,.
and th"at the action of_ the. emp!Oyer ·w::i.s an act of reprisal. and victimiz3.tion,
Qecause of their trade union activities. The Government referred the' industrial
_ dispute tO the Indi1strial Tribu.naL . .
•
The e~ployer Contended. that the two Workn1en were not 'workmen' ·within
the rrieaning Of the exprCssion·in·the Act-and "that the Government had no jurisdic-
G
tion to refer the dispute to the lndust-fiii.1 -T~ibunal. '1t was further co,ntCnded that·,
the s¢rvices of th~-wor,kme·n were tern1inated not by way of p'Unishn1ent but under
the contract of service and ihat the di"scip'linary enquiry \vhich was commenced
.--t·· was ~~bsequently dropped. · · ,t '

. . The -appellant-union- however conteitded that the employer wa~ estopped
H
from ~hall_cnging f~e status of the: two workplen \yitbin. the meaning of th'e expression

.. - \
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984] 2 S.C.R.

A in the A_ct on account of the subsisting, valid~ conc!Uded agreement between' the
parti_es and that in view of thC iward_ Of the lndµstria1 Tribunal, Delhi in 1.D. No.
46/66. The contentions about the existence of the agree·ment and the status of
salesmen 'were res judicOta and could nOt be reopened so 109g as the agr~ment
w~s in force and operative.

The Tribunal rejected the preliminary objections raised on behalf of the union
•·
and came to the conclusion_ that the three communications dated January 24, 1957,
B ·.April 24; 1957..and May I, 1957 Ex. W-2, W-"· W-4 respectively did.not spell out
a coniplete, concluded -agreen1ent between the parties on the points mentioned
therein but it was art inchoate agreement in the stage of negotiations and the employer
waS not bound to stand by its Offer made in the communication dated January
24, 1957 · denYing itself the right to contest the status of .the field force including
salesn1en as not being workman within the meaning of the Act. The a\vard Of the
Industriai Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 46(66 in which it. was held that there Was a
c concluded agreement between the- parties and therefore the industrial disputes
raised therein could not be ·adjudicated at Delhi did not operate as .ra.s judicata
because the issue in that a\vard was not directly and .~ub~tantially in issue: in. the
present reference.' The Tribunal set dciwn the reference for·fufther hearing.

· Allowing the Ap~eal :
•
HELD : 1. The Tribunal committed a serious error, apparent on record
D in holding that there was Ii.o concluded agreement between the parties as emerging
)
from Exs. W,2, W-3, and W-4. [329 F] '

In .. the instant case, having meticUlously examined various refe~cnces per-
taining to various industrial disputes ·between the parties at different centres in
:ni.ctia since· the agreement in 1957 it unquestionabiy emerges that the emPioycr till
the present reference never once even whispei:ed that 'the agteefnent was not. a
concluded agrOOffient or 'that it w.as an inChoate one left hanging at the s_tage of.
E ."'negotiations. It ~as only in the. present reference the contention raised was that
the agreement was not a· concluded agreement. The.employer which- swore by
the agreement and repeatedly succeeded in getting th~own out certain reference.s ·
at the threshold on account of the agreement contended tha'.t th_ere was no concluded
agrement, and. ignoring the whole history, the Tribun;r" fell into an eiior in accep:-
ting this contention. The Tribu'nal wholly ignored the fact that it was· ; solel)ln
agrement~ of. which effective" aand wholesome advantage had been taken by the
F employer and.when ii did not suit it; it wanted to turn round and not only repudiate
it but disown it. No court of justice ~an ever permit s~ch a thing to be done.
[324 E-325 BJ .
Hindustan Lever Ltd..v. Ram Mohan Ray & Ors., (1973] 3 S.C.R. 624; JVestern
India Match Co. v. ·Their Workmen, [1964] 3 S.C.R. 560.at 566; and A(urniniu'!1
Factory Workers, Union v. Indian Aluminiton Co. Ltd.~ [i,962]]1 L.L.J. 210, referred.
G to.
2. The Tribun.al is directed to proceed to detern1ine the dispute on merits
without conCerning itself with the considef~tion of the question whether the con-
cerned workmen were workmen w.ithin the meaning of the exp_ressiori under the
Act. [332 E]
H 3. ·-The concept.of . compulsory adjudication of industrial disputes was
statutorily _ushered ifi. with a view to providing a. forum and comP.elling the parties
WORKMEN ·v. HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. 309

to resort to the forun1 for arbitr~tion so as tp avoid collfrontation and.dislocati~n A.
in industry. A developing country like'·India can ill-afford dislocation in ~ndust~1al
production. Peace and harmony in industry an~ uninterrupted product~on being
the demands of the time, it was considered wise to arm the Government with pow~r
to con1pcl the parties to resort to arbitration and as a necessary coronary to ~void
corlfrontation and trial of strength, .which were co~sidered wasteful from national
and--public interest point of view. A welfare State can ill-afford to Jook askance
at industrial unrest ~nd indUstri_al Q.isputes.' [326H-327B] B
• Cases Dahyabhai Ronchhoddas Shah v. Jayanfilal Mohan/al., (1973} Lab. & Industrial
96.7 .referred to.
' 4. The Act did. not confer till the introduction of. Chapters ·v-A and V-B,
any special or enforceable benefits On the workmen. The Act was designed ·to
provide a self-contained Code to compel the parties to resort to industrial arbitra-
tion- for the· ·resolution· .of existing or appreherided disputes without prescribing
statutory norms for varied and variega_ted industrial ielatiO.n, so that the forUms
created for resolution of disputes may ren1ain ·unhan1pered by any statutory control
and devise rational norrris keeping place with improved industrial relations reflectfiig
and imbibing socio-economic justice. If this is· the underlying object behind enact-
ni.ent of the Act, the COurt by interpretative· process must strive to reduce the field
of conflict and expand· the area of agreeinent a:nd show its preference for upholding
agreements sanctified by ·mutuality· and conse~sus in larger publiC interest, namel.Y
to es~hew in"duStrial strife,· confrontation. and consequent· wastage.. [327 C-E]
D

5. It is inappropriate to usher in the. technical co.ncept of res judicata per-
vading the "field of civil ju~ticc "into t~e field of industrial arbitration. The principle
analogous to res judicata can be availed of to scuttle any attempt at raisi~g industrial
disputes repeatedly in defiance of .operative settlenients and awards. But this
highly technical concePt of·· civil justice may be Kept in precise confined limits in
the field o.f industrial arbitr<ition whi9h must as far as possible be kept:free from E
such technicalities which thwart resolution of industrial disput~s. [326 D-G]

Shahdara {D_elhi) Saharanftur Light Railway Co. Ltd.. v. · Shahdara (Delhi)
Saharanpui: ftailway Workers Union, (1969) 1 L.L.J. 734 at ·742; and Workmen
of Straw Board Manufacturing_ Co. Ltd. v. M/s Straw Boa1«d Mlinufacturing Co. Ltd.,
[1974] 3 S.C.R. 703 referred to.
F
6.. Unilateral repudiation is .distin~i from terrriination and an agreement/
settleinttnt reniains in fOrcc and. binding till ·terminated and· does not come to .an
end by unilateral repuqiation. -[328 E]

th~ inst~nt
In case; th~ parties enfered _intO a soi~~n agreement. It ~s
not
suggested that the agreement has been tenninated. The only argument put forward
on behalf of the em))l~yer was that· .the union· has repu~iated the agreement by
raising disputes of an a11-India natu.re at a r~gional level .and thereby committed G
·breach.. of the agreement. This. con_t6ntion is entirely without rnetits. What has
happe·ned.is ttiat the Union raised ceriain disputes whicl! according to the Union
were of a regional nature and which it was· not estopped from raising in the teeth
c;>f the tenns of the binding agreement behveen the parties. : On 'the Other b:ind,
·the employer contended that the disputes so raisCd were of an aJl-Jndia nature.
Both sides swore by the agreement,~the difference in approach being ·whether the
H
dispute was of an all-India na_turc _oi of regional nature. Th~ divergence in approach.
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A. W~· as .to the ihterPretation, _the coverage; the.ambit and the width of th_e agre~h;ent'
Both th~ pa.rticS s~ore by the agrec1n€nt but differe"d in. their aPproach and· inter-.
prl:'.tation and the forun1 na1nely t,he Industrial Tribunai consisientlY upheid at tiW
instance of the e1nployer that there was a biJld_ing valid agreement subsisting between
the parties~ This. constitutes adherence· to agrecmcrit 1 pcrfOrn1an.ce of th:;: agree~
ffient, implementation of the ·ag'ree1ncnt and being _bound by the agreement. This
.
conduct in no sense c.1,n'be said tCrconstitti.te .
repudiation: [327 F-328 CJ

B 7. The Tribun~l -derives_ its jurisdictin1i by the 9.rdc;. of reference and not
01_1.thc deteqninati<?O.. of a ju'risdictiOn.al·fact whipji i(ryii.1st of necessity decide t9 ~'.
acquir~ jurjsdiction. [330 G]

8. In industrial adjudic~tfon, is;;ues are of two typ~s : (i) those- referred b:Y
tht .OOvernn1ent for adjudication a11d.s.:t Out in the order -of 'reference,' and (ii) inci- J
dental issues invol-ving miXod question<; of l11w and facts. The Tribunal may fran1e.
c preliminary iS~ues if the. point on which. Jhe parties,are at varia,~cc, go to the. foot
of the matter. But the -Tribunal cannot fraver beyond the ptCadings and aTrogate
~ tO ·itself the pchvor -to. raise· issues which the. ijarties to the· refern"e~ are precludf:d
fro111 raising. If the e"n~plqyCr does not question the statu~ of the workmen, the
.Tribllnal callnot suo 1notu raise the· i~su~ 'ai1~ proceed to adjudicate Upon. the same
and throw out. the· reference ·on the sole ground that the Concerned workman was
or
not n workman·Withii-i-tp,e -n1:.!ani:ng ~he ?xprcssion under thi;: Act. [33.l G'-332 Al.
D
9.· ·Whether a- p~rticular pcrs~n ··is a·· workn1an or· not depends -u·pan· factual
1natrix. ·Worktnan is ·d~fined in S0c. 2(s) ·of .the :Act. The ·ingn:dients and th~
irtddcnts of thC definition when 'satisfied, thC person satisfy.ing. the sa1ne would.
be a \vorkman, N~gativcly if son1cone fails "to sati<;fy one or oth~r ingredient or
·incident of the definition, -he-may not be.hpld to be workman witi~in the meaning
' of th~ exprcssi011 ln the A~t: [3.30 C] .

E . t 0 .. There is no provision in the A.ct. -which ob11ges the rndtistria\ Tribui1al
or other forums sJt up _under the Act Ip d.;:cidc iVen in thG absence o(a :contention
froin the effip\oyer, a preliminary issue. w.heth_cr th_c per<;Oll· \Yh.o has_ invoked its .
ju'~isdiction is. <l work1nan or not. ··There is no- ·suc·h oblig.1tion cas~ sth.tutorily
on th0 Ti:i.bunal. If the employci· ~Oc~. not raise the contention about the status
of.thC \Vorkm'.ln a.p.proaching the Tribunal, the Tribunal has no-obligation to decide
the Statµ:s· cif the person Whether he is a· workman or uot. The TribHnal inust
F prbceed o'n the assrnnption ~hat n'o s\ich ·_conte.ntiqn ls _raised and is requirCd. to be
adjudicated upon. [J30 D-F] ·

CML APPELLATE JURISDJCTfON: ~ivil Appc2l Ne. 1865 of 1982
Appeal by Special leave . from the Order dated the ·24th
. Decembcr.'19.8.1 of the Labour Court, Delhi in LD. No. 120 of
G
• i977 .

M.K Rammnuithi, · VP. Choudhmoy . Jifendra Sharma and
P. C,aur, for the Appellant.

H · ·-·G.B.. Pai, 0.C. Mathui·, D.Nc Mishra, S. ·sukumaran and
Ms. Meera. Mathur; ·for the· Rcsp~ndent.

'
WORKMEN v. . HINDUSTA~
. . ~EVER L'rU. (Desai,
.
. . J.)
.
311

A
. j ' . . .

The Judgment of the Court was delivered hy

DESAI, J .. Tf solemn agr_eelt)ents _proposed. by t11e employer.
and readily ac.ceeded. to by .the workmeio and holding:the forte for
over a· quarter· of a: century Ure crud~Jy .disowned .cofr1pelli:ig. the
workmen to knock at the door of the apex court for removing the
"roaJcblock in tJ1e access to justice set up by preliminary cbjectioi C'f B
·iechnioal nature>, _industrial peace and harmony chanted" by the
emplo~·er. \~ould be not merely an empty 1;1a11trl1 buf a· fliti!e (,xercise
df chasi,ng a mirage and unfortunately that i~ the ·sltuati('i1 here.
'
l \'.: . . . ·. . . .
·

._Hindustan Lev.~r L~d., _a muhi:ri~itio~a! co1ripany, respo~dent
. -. .
,;. '

1 herein addressed a communication d'::ted January 24,_ 1957 1-ccordjng c
the out-come·.. of mutual deliberaiiors betwcrn the .Hi1•dust211 Lever ·
Ltd_. {'employer'. for short) and.· the Hindust_an Levq' Mazdcor Sabha
;. ·uni-o-n' f Or' short) recognised repres~n"tativ- u1lion o_f. ·th~. \\'0rkn1cn
employed by _the employer. The rckvan_t portion may be extrnct(d :

"Bx. W-2 24th January, 1957 D

_The Presidrnt,
Hindt)Stan Lever Mazdoor Sabha,
Bomloay,

Dear Sir; .
' . •'

R~ferring~to: our rcCent 1neeting: abriut 'field force;- \ve \VOlfld
<:,c to p:ucc. on record that ~- · •

.!) . Wc."r~·:"ognise you as tJ:ic·· representjtive union. fo·r aJl -F
s~ctiofis of fic19- fo~ce all over In.din.

2). · Yoll'-h,,tve agr~ed to tre<:1t_all 1nat'tcrs relating to \vages/•
sitlaries and ter-1ns and cdnditions cf $ervice ·on an ali·ITidia ·
basis· and not_ on· a regional haSi? as far as fi.efd forct is
c:_,nccrne'd. -
G
3f. For all -111atter~ of an .;ll~India natute re!nti1ig to field
force, you will communicate ivith ihe Pcrs~1'nel Director.
' We hope that all such .matters will he scttkd by dircc_l
Megq!iatiOn hut.i.f at ony stage you decide to refer the
matlcr to conciliation, you will. po w only at Bombay. H
W::., on our part, gi.ve you the assurance that if the 1naltcr
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984) 2. S.C ..R:

A is referred to a· Tribuna!"in llombay then its a\vard will
be applied by you to field force all.Dver India .. Fo~ thi~

.
!·eason, you wiH agree that it will be only proper for the
Tribunalto examine \he matter in an all India
, .
perspective. .

4)"· Although we do not nnticipate. any problei11s of a.purely
• B local nature . i~ cas.c such proble~s do arise· :;our rnem- ·.
bers vvill first try to arrive at a solution by approaching
· their own managers. and if this fails, your loeal Committee
' should refer the matter to the local Commercial Manager
·nr Office Manage~. · · .
•
c 5) . Foi future disputes. v~shall ·not coniest. issues about
field. force 911 the basis of t.hejr not ~being 'wo-r~mcn'
bLit shal! "contest issues only qn their 111erits in th.e same
way a_s wego !£ir other e91ployces. ·

Please.confirm that yo~1-agree.with the points menticined
above. ,

Yours faithfully,
... Sd/- B.K. B;nd1ni"
.'
The union respondi:d ·to this con1n1unication· as per its letter
E elated April 24, 1957 which reads as under :

"nx: w.3 · •
.The Personnel· Manager> • -~
Hindustan Lever Limited, \.
F Seindia House,
R8lbrd Est.ate, 1
Bombay-]; 24th April; 1957 )

D~ar·Sir,

·G With reference to your letter·Personn~l KSB/BN/49 dated
24.1.1957 and in the light of further discussions we had with
·you ori the subject. we would like. to sta1e as under :
.,
J. We thank you for recognising u; as the Representative
H Union for all sections of the 'Field Force e11iployees all
ovei India.
WORKMEN'V. HINDUSTAN LEVER L'fD. (Desai, J.) 313

2. We agree that certain major issues such as salary wages,
bonus,.provident fund, Gratuity, leave etc. will be treated
.
as far . as nossible . on. an all-India basis.
A
..
3. We agree that for all matters -of an all-India. nature,
we will communicate with the Personnel Director. As
for the other points raised by i•ou, we agree to follow
B
the procedure. as far as legally permissible. '

4. Local matters, if .nol settled by negotiations, will have
to be ·dealt with otherwise. For instance . ihe Sabha
may go in for co_nciliation or may be free to resort to
.>iny other legitimate and/or peaceful method. ·

- 5. We are indeed glad to note tha.t you will not contest
issues about fiel_d force on ·the basis of their n6t being
'Workmen' but you will contest issues only ·an their
n1erits in·the san1e \Vay 8-S you do for other emp{oyees-.
c

We ·wish to take the opportunity also to· confirm your
agreenlefit with us that {n. regard to ·deinal1ds relating · D
to Field Force contained in Rer. N.48 of "1956, now
p~niling adjuQicatie,Rtat Delhi, you will not•contest the
issue on the basis Of their not being 'Worl011{'1l' b'ut you
\viii contest the is.sue on the. n1crits of the dernands as_
you do for other cmpfoyces .
{
.

+ E
Yours faitlifully,
Sd/- J?, Pullat President

~
!st May, ,1957"

A further communicatiqn ensued from th"- employer dated '
. May I, 1957. It is not necessary to reproduce the whole of it save F
• ahd cxc_ept that the e1nployer wanted .t~ be assured that the un.ion
---.i
by its communicaiio11 dated April 24, 1957 uneguivccally intended.
t'.) CJ;ifirm th:! iten1s of.agrceincnt relating to various iten1s 6f'indi1strial
~
disput~s b:!t\v~en the parties as set out in its con1municatjon dated·
JanLJary 24, 1957 ai1d .further sought clarification of _the two points
t\l~~d b); the uninn. • · G

Tn~- ·substantial questio1_1 is vvhethcr there C-ft1:erged a ·concluded
ag.ree.n12nl between thC parties and binding on the parties till it is
• t~rrr)inated accordin·g to la\v? the question of the existence of a
c3nsluJ~d agrGemtnt a._1Hl its validity arises· iJi the folk)\ving·circums- H
tances. · ·
·•
. SUPREME COURT REl'OR\~ [1984] 2 s.c,R .

A .Shri A.K', Sircar and Shri R.L. Gupta were protected workmen
'Pi thin. th~· meaning of the expression in the Industrial Dispute~··A<:t; ·
1947 ('Ac!' for short) and were admittedly the. office-bearers
miion a1id consequehtly leaders of the. workmen,. The employer
of
the
,.
.~

served_ a charge-sheet on.Shri A.K. Sfrcar on April JO, 1974 and on
the n·oxt•day. 'a charge-sheet. was served .on Shri R.T,. Gupta. ·There
B .followed .a disciplinary enquiry and ultimately the services of Shri
A.K .. Sircar nd Shri R.L, Gupta were ierminated by the employer.
. The union raised an industrial dispute contending· that the termination
. of services of the afore'nlCiltioned. two w0rkmenwaS illegal and invalid
:and the ·enquiry was equally illegal and improper and that the acti.On
of the employer was an act of reprisal and victimization because.of
.''?•
·.~ the trade-union .actiyities of the afor.ementioned two ·office-bearers
of the 'union. The appropriate Governfrlent referred the industrial
dispute to the Industrial Tribunal on July 16, )977.

Tl;e employer in its· written ~tatement. intet a/ia contended that .
-
Shrl .A.K. Sircar and Shri. R.L. Gupta .were iiot workmen within the · ·.·~
D meaning of the expression in the Act and .therefore the appropriate
Government had nojurisdiction to refer the dispute to the Industrial
Tribunal and consequently-the Industi"il.Tribunol had ·no jurisdiction
to .hear and qeal' with 'the refereµ~~- .. _It was ~urther -~on_tendCd t~at. in
a reference·between the employer and the union in ai1other dispute
to the Industrial Tribunal· in Maharashtra· State, ·a contentio.n was
E ~als_ed-byJh~ en1Ploy~r tbat sJ!e~111f!Jl, off he el'nplcY.er.i~ not~ ~vor!(1~2n
·within the 1;1eaning or the expfes>ion .in the Act and• this objection
was upheld.by the Industrial.Tribunal and a petition for.special leave
\
against the decisbn of the Jqdu'str:a1 Tr<bunal to the Supreme Court
. waS' rejected o~ O:tober l, 1975. ft' was furtl'er contended that'the \tf
-. services of.: the af~)remenJioned · t\Vo _\vorktTien Were. terminated . not -
F by way of punishment. but under the co;llract of sorvice and the
dis-c;irlinary e11quify,_ WhiCh \VaS' conniienced earl:er \VOS slfbsequfntJy
dropped.

· The union in its counter-affidavit iiiter al/a co1itcnded that .the ,.
e;,,player '.was est0 pped from chalhnging the ·Status 'of the fwo cQncer-
G ned workmen as not being \VCPknieo withfo the meaning of· the :ex- .
"pression in the Act on account of a subshting valid concluded agree-
ment bet\Veeo the parties inter a/ia ]Yrovi(ling that the einploycr \Viii
. n~t· contest the issue about statu~ .of field force (which expression
includes salesman) on the basis of their not b~ing workmen but shall
H contest the issue.only on the nieri'ts ill the same way as they .do for
other employees, It.· was also. contended that in view of Shri Roop,
"
.WORKMEN v. HINDUSTAN LbVER LTD.... (Desai,
. . J.) 315

Chandra· award ti1e ·is.sue about existence of ihe agreement and the A
+- status of salesman· is res judicatq and cannot be reopend iill the agree~
n1cnt remains
.. i1r force and. operative. .
•
The rival pleadings led tci. the Industrial Tribunal framing the .
following issues : · ·
. . . •· B
"l) Whether the management .is estopped from challenging

~·· the status of these two concerned workmen as "workman'.
within the meaning ofthe Industrial Disputes Aet.
~- 2) .Whether -the awar<! dated 17-11-66 of the Additional
' ; Industrial Tribunal, Delhi wculd operate as res judicata
between the parties ?'
c
3) . lf issue No. I is answered int~e negative whether the
concerned (sic) are· 'workman' within :the meaning .of ·
· the I.D. Act ?

'4) What is the effect of the order dated·.6-1-75 passed D
by the ·l.T. Maharashtra. in reference 203 of 1973 and
order dated i.10.1975 of the Supre1m; Court in Petition
for special leave 1602 of .1975? -

5) · Whether the reference is incomp.etent and bad iri law
.for reasons mentioned in preL qbjections (III), (IV), (V) .· E
· a11d (Vil) and (VIII) 1

Issue Nos. 1,2, 4·and 5 were directed to be he;ird as pre·
liminary issues. On Issue· No . .J, the Industrial Tribnrtal held that
the tht~e.communications.E~.W-2 ·ciated January 24, 1957, Ex. W-3.
'dated April 24, 1957 and Ex. W-4 dated May 1, 1?57 did not spell F
out a complete concluded agreement betw·een the parties on ihe
points set oµt therein but it \V.as· an inchoate agreement in the stage
of negotiations and therefore the· employer wa& not bound to stand
by its offer made in the comm,;nication dated January 24, 1957 deny-
to
,ing itself' the right to contest the. status ·of the field force incfoding
salesman as not· being workman within the meaning of the expression G
in the Aci. On Issue No. 2,.it was hied that the award of Shri Roop
Chandra in LD. No. 46 of 1966 in. which it was held that there was a
concluded agreement between the. parties· as disclosed· in Exs. W-2,
W·3 & W-4 and therefore 'the industri.al dispute therein 'raised could
not be adjudkated upon at Delhi, it being an AU-India ·dispute and H
ought to have been rai$e<l at Bombay, did not:opei:ate as resjuqivata
•
.·....
316 SUPREME COURl REfORlS . [1984) 2 S.C.R·

A because the issue in the award was not directly and s11bsta11tially in.
issue in the present reference. Parties did not advance any argument
on Issues·Nos.-4 .and 5 anc\ tl1erefcire with reference to Issue No. 4,
.the Ttibunal observ~d that the same. may not be disposed of without
further hearii1g the parties and no findi.ng was recorded on Issue ·No, 5.
The Tribunal accordingly rejected the preliminary objectiorn raised
B on behalf. of the union and set down the reference for further hearing.
Hence this• appeal by s·pecial. le~vc by the union. .

. At the outset, we must xecord our unhappiness on the attitude
adopted by the employer in eon tending as late.as .1981 tha~ the three
commmiications ·Exs .. W-2, W-J and W-4 did ·not constitute a con-·
c eluded agreement between the parties with respect to the points settled
. therein and the Tribunal ignoing the ·l1istoi·y and repeated advantage
taken by the employer of this conclLided agreement . on numerous.
oc.casions accepted. the conte1ition of the employer. It is therefore
necessary first to point out how from 1957 till as' late as. 1966 ahd
even thereafter the employer non,suited the union, if that is a proper.
D term, by .• setting up the .,very agrce1nent which now the employer
wants to. urge that it is11ot a concluded agreemeni. · The three impoi-
' tant clauses of the agreement ·emerging 'from the· correspondence
relevant to the present dispute are that (i) the Hindustan Lever
fyfozdoor Sabha was tecognised by tbe employer as a representative
union for all s~ctions. of field force all over lndia in the employinent
E of the. employer and (ii) the union agreed to bring all matters relating
· . to wages/salaries and ·ter'rns and conditions o'r service on an All-India
basis and not·on regional basis as for as field force is concerned.and
(iii) that in future dispuics, the employer will not contest issue about
member of the field forc.e being workmen but shall contest issues
only on their .merits. in the same way as the employer would do for
F other employees. Freed from technical jargon, the employer agreed
and undertook not to contest in any industrial dispute the status
of the field. force as not being workman witl1in the meaning of the
expression in the Act and that reference, if any, would M contested
on tl\e meri\s of the industi-ial dispute in respect of which reference
is made to the Industrial Tribunal. The out-tome of the agreement
G would be that if a dispute of an all-India nature in respe~t of the field.
force . is raised at a regional level, foundi\lg its contention. on one of
the terms of the agreement, the employer would be in ·a position to get .
.. any regional reference rejected on the ground that there is a subsistil1g
valid agre.ement between the parties that such dispute .of an all-India
H . nature in respect of the field force can.be· raised at Bombay only and
withiµ the jurisdiction of the Industr.ial Tribunal at Bombay only .

.'
'WORKMEN I'. HINDUSTAN LdER LTD. (Desai, J.) . 3l7
.
There is no dispute between the parties that if't\1ere is_ an agreement A
such would bo the out-come of it. This is not only not in dispute
but it is conceded 'that a settlement was arrived. at in respect of industrial
disputes between the enwloyer and the 11nion concerning the field
force including salesman in 1«15"1, 1959 and 1964: 'An averment to
this effect ·is made in Paragraph 'H' of the petition for special leave
· and Anx .5 was annexed to the petition which purports to be the settle- B
rnent dated December 22, 1964.. Jt is signed ·by Shd C.J. Mahimkar,
Joint Personnel Manager on . behalf of the employer and Shri
A.K. Basu; General -Secretary of the union at the relevant time. The
various industrial disputes 1n respect of which settlement is arrived at
were between the employer and the workmen of the. company who
were the members of the field fot'ce (salesmen, sales supervisors etc.) c
employed in any part of India. This settlement was arrived at _under the
Industrial Disputes Act' and was registered according to the require-
ments 'of the Act. This implies ibat the status of the salesman as
· being workman within the meaning of the expression of the Act was
· not only not disputed but specifical)y conceded and that mtist obvi-
ously be pursuant to the subsisdng agreement. This is however an D
inference so it is better now to move on to adjudication and award
by a forum with jurisdiction to decide the point.' ·

The Chief Commissioner of Delhi referred an.industrial dispute
whether workmen whose names were set out in the order of reference
l;Je paid compensation in addition to' the usual remuneratidn for the
period they had marketed Erasmic Blades and what directions were
necessary· in this behalf. The reference was between the employer
tl1e present respondent and the appelll~nt Union.

In this reference~ the workmen whD claimed ren1uneratiun \Vere
Delhi based salesmen of the employer. The_ employer appeared and F
~ontested the reference. The only important contention raised on
behalf of the employer which must be 1ioticed reads as under :
'
"That the concerned workmen are members of the field
force of the company; .that the field force unit is a seperate
unit known as Field Force Unit; that they are liable to .be G
transferred anywhere in India; that the Field Force Unit
is controlled by Company's Head Office .in Bombay; that it
wa'.< agreed between the .company and the Hindustan Lever
Mazdoor Sabha, Bombay that all matter.< relating to Field
Force Unit would be dealt ivi_th by both parties at Bombay H
on all-India basis and_ if no settlement is reached; the dispute
•

318 . SUPREME C~URT .R~PORTS [l984J 2 s.c.R.

A shall be raised in Bombay in accordan.ce with Industrial Disputes
Act; and. that any ,sett/emen.t or Award tl;erein 1vo1dd be m~de ..~
app/icaO/e and sha// (>e bindilj[5 Oil a// members of the jiefd force
ail over. India." . (Emphasis supplied). . .

The employer . also contended. that i1f view of .the agreement
between· the parties, the dispute. referred to the Industrial Tribunal
regarding Hie field force could not be ;·aised at
Delhi. It was also
contended ihat in view of the agreement subsisting betweeh.the paries,
the employe.i· had agreed not to contest the issue that its salesman
were.. not lv.orkmen within tlie meaning of the expression in the. A~t'.
. kfurthe·r contentlo;1 was. raise.ct that the union has committed breach .
(:. of'the agreement by ri!ising t.he dispute at Delhi. ·

' The union while conceding that there was an agreement between
the parties as alleged w·
the· employer contested the issue by·saying.
that.:the dispute was)1ot of an all-fodia nature as it was concerning
' only some Delhi based .salesmen of the employer ·and therefore the
D dispute was not .covered by the agreement. ·
. .

The Industrial . Tribunal. (Shri Roop Chandra) 61\ the rival
contentions of the parties, raised the. following issues : .

"ISSUES
J
."I) .. Is thei·e any agreement between tl1e 'Cqmpany a1id its (
wo.rkme1i thi·ough ·the Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha
that all maU~rs relating to· members of the :field force
• would be dealt with by .. both the parties in Bombay
-1
ou a:n ail India basis and that if no settlement is reached,·
F the dispute would be raised in Bombay.ii} accordance with
~
the Indnsti:ial Disputes
. '
Act ?- · .r
2) Doe.s the said agreement preve~1t the workmen in this
case from· raisi11g the dispute in Delhi ?
.'
·3) · Are the einployees concerned not 'w.orkmen' ·within
the meaning of the term under tlie lndu~trial Disputes
Act? If so, has.the tribunal no juri~diction? ·

4) · Whether workmen have committed· a breach of. the
H agreement' alleged to have been entered .into between
the. management and the µnion in 1957 and if so·, is the
WORK~1BN v.. HINDUSTAN
• -
.

.
.
LEVER LTD. (Desai, J.) .
l
. 319

management not entitled .!() rai.se. the pl.ea ·that the A
salcs1nen .are not 'wofk1nen' within· the: meaning· of
f· Industrial Disputes Act ? "

It would thus appear at a gl!tnce that i( was the employer who
wanted the refe~ence t-0 be rejected on the preliminary objection .that
there was a valid subsisting c01icludecl agreement between the parties B
: which had a direct bearing on the· industfi.al dispute involved in
the reference and that ·because• of the agrce1nent and as a 11ecessary
·corollary of. the agreement, the Tribunal had no · jurisdktion to
entertain. tlie dispute. . .
• •
Now sec the out-coib.e of this contention o(the employer. On c
Issue Nos. I and 2, Shri Roop Chandra as per bis a.ward dated Novem-
ber 17, 1966 held that in view of Exs. W-2, W-3 and W-4marked in
evide1ice_i11 the reference before him .~s Exs. M-1, M-2 and M-3 pro,
duced aµd .relied upon by- the mai\agement th~!. is the employer,
· t.he Industrial. Tribunal at Delhi would have no jurisdiction to·entertai11
it. It was never contended by the employer.beforeS·hri Roop Chandra D
that the three documents did not end in a concluded agreement. On .
a contrary parties were ad idem that there was aconcluded agreement .
·between the parties. The difference was in their approach as to the
applicability of various clauses of agreement td the dispute raised in
the reference before the Tribunal., The employer contended that the
dispute was of an all-India. nature and therefore could not be raised E
at Delhi. The union, on the ot.Jie·r ha11d, contended tha the dispute·
was of a regional nature ·concerning only 1.6 Delhi based salesme1i
of the Company and therefore the dispute could not be styled as an
·. all'lndia dispute. · .
. .
The. Tribuna.1 lield .ih11t the dispute was of ari all-India nature, F
related ·to the· duties and liabilities of all members of the .field force
employed all over India.and it involved su~h a major issue as salary
and.wages. Approaching the .matter from .this angle, the Tribunal
further held on the basis oLthe agreement, that the dispuie could
only be taken cognizance of at Bombay: The Tribunal .. was of the
· opinion that the agreement was valid and ·did not contravene Sec. 28 G
of the Indian C:ontra6t Act because where the parties .choose to h.ave
the matter entertained in one of the two or more courts having jurisdic-
tion to e1itertain the matter, such an agreement does not· cont~avene
Sec. 28 .. The Tribunal further held that the agreement had the sanctity
. ofa 'contract and the parties must be held.to the c.ontract'. The Tribu- H
nal concluded by observing
. that the union .
. was notjustified in raising

.•
320
.. SUPREME.COURT REPORTS [1984] 2 s.c.R.

A the dispute. in. Delhi in vi;w ·of its agreement' with. the emp!o;er as
evidence by the three documents and that it is.not expedient in the
._ interest of justice and peace and harmony in industry that the Tribunal
should _adjudicate the matter of an all-India· nature. So saying the
Tribunal rejected the reference. The question is who took advantage
and benefit of the agreement? 'unquestionably, the employer who
.ft · now decades after. successfully contending before another Tribuna)
that there was a valid and concluded agreement. wants to contend
that the three doeun:ients,Exs. W-1, W-2.and W-3do not spell out a
· concluded agreement but ail inchoate one which remained at foe
stage of negotiations only. Btil that is ·not the end .of th~ vacillation
• ~n the part of.the-employer. ·
c
Mr. Pai, learned counsel on. behalf ~f the employer on the "other
hand contended that" the union has expressly repudiated the agreement
8.iid th~r~fore, it is not open no\v ro the union to take r~course to the
. agreement. It was subniiiteil that if the union has committed breach a
. of the agreement, if there was· any, the employer is absolved from ..
D observing or complying .with the. agteement. To substantiate thi&
submission, our attention was invited to a reference made by the
Lt. Governor, Delhi to the Addl. Industrial Tribnnal constituted ·
for the Union Tt'1"ritory of Delhi; thcn·presided over.by Shri Hans Raj
for adjudication of the following. ,two issues :

E ···1. whethor the deduction of leave" ·by tlie management for"
the year··I967 is illegai ·and/or unjustified and if so, to"
what relief are the affec1,ed wo1·kmen enti(led' and what
directions are necessary in this respect ?

2. Whether .the management was obliged to grant. _special·
F increment to all of its workineil. in .Delhi Branch and
if so, to what relief the affected workmen are 'entitled·
and what directions are necessary in this 1:espect ?"

The. union filed a statement of claim and sulisequently filed an"
additionai or amended written statement in which inte1· alia it was.
G .-contended- 'that the .workmen of the concern "throughout India were
agitated becasue of this measure .and its wholly illegal implementation
. and the applicant Sabha led the opposition of the scheme and the
resistence of the workmen to it.' This averment was relied npon to
urge that the unlon ·raised a dispute of ail all-India nature at Delhi·
H which was the regional centre .und this would imply intentional breac.h
or repudiation of the a~reeinent. Before we examine !his contention,
•
-~

· WORKMEN v. HINDUSTAN. LEVER LTD. (Desai, J.) 321

it is. necessary to refer to p'ara IO of the amended st(ttement of claim A
'-j..· in \vhich the union states·as under : ·
,
"That th.e binding nat~re of the agreement has been·
flagrantly flou<ed by the Management and. the very basis of
.
collective bargaining for industrial peace ha; been attac)<ed.":
B
This would show that the unioi1 .accused the employer of breach·
of agreement. On the. other hand, the employer in its written state-·
•
mcnt contended as under : ·

,. "No claim on behalf of the employees of the Field Force
ca'il .be taken up by Hind\1sta1i Lever Mazdoor Sabha, Delhi c
·Centre and this Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
entertain the same in view of an agreement arrived ai and
between the. Company and the Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha
in )957." (emphasis supplied) · ·

It would be crystai clear that the employer wanted the reference D
to be rejected· at the threshold on the preliminary objection that in
·view of the concluded binding agreement betwee11 the parties, the·
dispute referred to for adjudication being of an all-India nature,' the
. union was precluded from raising lne same at a regional level and
the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. Apart frem
the extracted specific contention i11 paragraphs 5 and 6, the contentio1i· E
is· elaborated by the employer and it was specifically contended that
in the award ·dated Nov. 17, 1966 by Sh;i Roop Chandra, Addi.
Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, it' was held that a valid agreeme1it was in
existence between the parties and no dispute pertainfog to the members
of the Field Force can be raised anywhere except in the State of
Maharashtra. It was further contended that the award of Shri Ro-0p · F
Chandra was confirmed by the High Court of Delhi by summarily
dismissing the Writ Petition No. 1163/67 filed by the union against the
award and when the union approached the Supreme Court in Appeal
. No. 42/68, the same was rejected thereby affirming the ·existence and
: binding character of the agreement.. These assertions by the employer
fiow from the ple.ad.ings. To. revert to the. narration, Shri Hans .Raj . G
,. proceed on leave and then retired and when a new Presiding Officer
• was appointed, the reference with one application: filed by the union
to summon certain documents ca!Jle up before. the Tribunal. . 'By a
laconic order, unsupported by any. reasoning, the Tribunal observed
that the salesmen are not w-0rkmen and so the documents neeu not H
be .summoned. lt was this order on the application which was cha\-
32~. .• . SUPREME ~OUR~ REPORTS . [1984}2 S.C.R,

A lenged i1rihe writ petition filed by the unicin .. It is difficult to appre-
ciate what permitted the Tribunal 'to hold· thar the salesmen are not
workmen.within the.meaning o!the qpression int.he Act and why it
did not consider the specific contention that the .employer wa·s estopped ·
from caising the contention as to· the status of the ·salesmen in view
of the. ~i°nding agreemei~t between tl~e par~ies. Bt,it for- the present
· purpose, it is sufficient to .notice that tlie employer and the UJiion both
swore by the agreement and at any rate the employer mover contended
that there was no concluded agnoe\nent between 'the parties covering ·
. one of the points in the dispute· namely,:the status of the members
· of the Field Force including salesmen. ·

c · Mr. Pal. next turned to another' ·round of litigation between the
panics. It appears that <:ffective from· September u, 1966, 'the emp-
loyer J'e.organised its marketing organisation into .·tivo divisions, the
Main Liries Division and the Spe;:iality Lines Division. The Calcutta'
·Branch of the employer was coi1cerned only with marketing.·· The
workmen at· Calcutta were directlv. affected by 'the reorganiszation. >
D On· a· di°spute raise.cl by the union: the Governinent of West Bengal
refei'red .the {allowing disJl.ute for adjudication to the· Industrial Tribu-
nal· · · ·

"Is' the liun1an rarionttlisation as a n1easure of econo·n1ic ·
' '
reorganisation. of the company :reflected through job-inte-
gration ·that. have either' been. effected or pro.posed to be
effected justified ?" .

" Pending adjudication of the dispute, some workmen filed applica-
lions under Sec. 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Tribunal
1
alleging .that during the pendency of the adjudication their service
F. cdnditions·had been altered adversely and their salary for. the month
· of October, 1966 had not been paid. The Tribunal granted the applica- j
tions of the workmen. and the employer approac)led the Supreme
Court by ·special leave,. The main refer.!i1c~ was finally disposed of
. infavo.ur of the· employer upholding the reorgani~atioil of marketing
organisation. The union questioned the correctness of this award
G ·before ·the Supreme Court. Both the· groups of appeals· came up for
hearing together and the decision of this Court is reported in Hindustan
Le~er Ltd. v. Ram Mohan Ray & Ors.'" T[lis Conrt upheld the r.ight'
of tlle employer to organise and reorganise its work)~ the mamier it ·I
pleases. 'Accordingly the appeals 'filed by the union wern rejected.
H
(I) [1973] 3 SCR 624.

..
WORKMEN v. HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. (Desai, .J.) '
..
The appeals:filed by the employ~r againstthe award in favour of the
32~

workmen in the applications under Sec. 33A were eq~ally rejected by .
. this.Court holding that: non-payment of wages in the circumstances of
of
the case amounts to ·an alteration in thecoi1ditions service. Frankly,.
this decision sheds no light o.n the point:under discussion because · .•
neither: side refo:d unon the agree.men! ncir did the agreement figure
into the dispute. However, it is interesting to note that when the ·
· main refejence was be.fore the Trlbui1al, a. prel~minary objech011 was
B ' ..
· raised cin behalf of the employer to the effect that 'by an agreement
·~ entered into in January 1957 by and between the employer and unio·n, ·
it was agreed that all matters relafo;g to die matters of the "'utdoor
' mal'keting staff, to wit members of' the field force can be rais~d al
-1(- Bombay only and as ~uch the company as well 0s·the Sal)ha are bouri.d ' ·. c
)
• · by the aforesaid agreement. Therefore, 1iot only the employer affirmed
'

the agreement, did not contend that it was an inchoate one but .
specifically placed that it,'is a ~ncluded ·binding·agreement between
the partie-s. · · · - · ·
\--'('.·
· It appears that .J.ttere was .one 1i10re reference I.D. No. 43/72 D
between the parties atDelhi. Following the. decision of ·this_ Court
in the case just herein discussed, the !'cf.er.:nc;e \Vas rej~cled .

. Mr. Pai nexi referred io an order in Ref~rp1ce (I.D}No. 203/70
by the :Indtistriai' Tribunal Maharnshtra bctwtci1 the.employer and
the \Vork1nen- efnployeeS under -it: The clcLtland \vhich "' as refei-red
1 E
for' adjudicati~n· incfoded · r~vis,ion of pay s~ales with adjustment,
re_visiof1 _of the y.:age-s~ale of sUb-cle-r-i~al grade, gratuity disturbance

-
allowance/and settling-in-al)o\vance · fo the Office staff,· allo\\'.ance
t? office ·st.aff. whi-Ic 01r tOur, acting allo~ance,. ov.ertin1e. ~ages, caSh
allowance and. leave tt'avel facilities. The. employer raised number
of prelin1inary o.bjcetions, one SU!.~lr being that Salesn1e11, ·Marl<eting F
Research Investigators, Market Research Supervisors, Sales' Super-
visOrs, Trade Marks Jnv(;~HigQtors; ·Seed B~yers and -·Supervisors Or
.
' ..
c:ler{caI· staff arc ·no~· .\vor~tnen.· within 'the ·1neani~g 9t' the Cxpression
in, the ACt, and hence nO indl1strial dispute 3311 be rnisCd on their
behalf and consequently the..Ti'ibunal had no'jurisdio.tion· to adjudicate
· upon the sanie. ··The .un'ion ··counterQd this_ preliminary objection G
by ·asserting that the cDntentiori about the status <if the aforementioned·
.c~tegorie.s is barred by the principle of resfudi~at.a in view of.the "'~ard ·
dated April 13,' 1967 made by .the 3rd Industrial Tribunal, Wc5t Bengal
The Tribunal rcj 'cted the contention of· the u'nion observing thai the
dispute bei,;,een them is .not of ati all-In'dia nature and therefore, the H
employer
. is entitled
- '
to raise the. question
.
,about
.
the
. .
status of the work-
•

324 SUPREME COURT liTIPORTS [\ 984] 2 S.C.R.
•
A men included in lh~ aforem~ntioned c'ategories. This. woul\! imply
that the reference was rejected not Oil the ground lhai there was no
agreement but 011°the ground that the dispute involved ii1 the reference
was not covered by the agreement. In the· same reference, a plea of
estbppel rnised on behalf of the union to the effect that the company
• ,•
was precluded in view .of the subsisting agreCIJlCnt from que~tioning

•
B the status ~f the salesmen and allied categories as workmm was .
. .
overruled bv the.. Tribunal observing that Exs. W-2, .W-J and. .W~4..
'

leave no :doubt thot the employers' agreement not to dispute the status
•

of the· Field Force was only on the clear undcrstandi1ig that it will
· be so, if' dispute. is raised on all India· basis. The Tribunal tlien
'observed that the .dispute atlmittedlywas not an all-Tndia dispute and
c therefore, rejected the plea of cstoppcl.

It is at this stage necessary to refer to 6ne more reference between
the parties being LT. No. 233}67. The dispute referred to was a·
·demand by the .workmen to withdraw the ·reorganisation integration
-
imposed on the Suporvisors attached· to the Sales Department arid
D impending in the case of Field Force (Salesmeniand otherstaff attache.d
to the Sales, Accounts, .Transport and alhed department. TlllS
demand \\'as rejected by ihe Tribunal· fol lowing the decision in Hindustan
Lever Ltd. v. Ram Mohmi Ray & Ors .. (supra) The rejection of the
demand has no impaci at ali on the point under discussion.

E Having rneticnlousl)r eXamined various references pertaining to
various industrial disputes between the' parties al different centres
in.lndia since the' agreement i.n 1957, it unquestionablyemei·ges that'

-
the employer till the present reference never once even whispered ·
that the agreement was not. a concluded i1greemcnt or that it. was an
inchoate one left hanging at the stage of: negotiations. But in the
F. pr_esent reference the contention raised was that the agrement \\1 ~s not
a concluded agreern.ent because tha( is hdw the Tribunal 'has approa-
che.d the pr0b:cm .. The Tribimal has ohserved in this behalf as under:

"Accordin-' to the inanage1nent the -three letters do ~ot
constitute an agreement because in an agree1nent there
G should be an offer and the offer must ·be accepted as such.
They have.argued.that the offer. made in Ex. W-2'ha·vc 'not
beenaccept~~as·..,uch in Ex. W-3 .. . -..... -....... "
' '

H
The employer ~hich swore by the agreement and repeatedly
succeeded in getting thrown out certain· references at the threshold
on. [:ccou.nt of the' ag(ec1nent, no\v \VantS tO coritend that there \vas no
WORKMEN v. HINDUSTAN LEVER"L'ID. (Desai, J.) ., 325..

concluded agreement, arid ignoring the whole history, the Tribunal A
falls into an error in accepting this corytention. The weight of evidence
not only not at all referred to by the Tribunal but frankly wholly
ignored clearly _and unmistakably leads to one and one conclusion
alone that according to· the employer there was .the concluded agree-
ment between the parties. Tt is a solemn agreement, tht agreement of
which effective and wh.cilesome advantage has been taken by the B
employer and when it now does not suit i_t, it in breach of the solerrrn
agreement wants to· turn round and not only repudiate it but disown
it as having never been entered into. No Court of justice can ever
permit such a thing to be done.

Mr. Pai, however, raised a very technical contention that the c
· preliminary objection raise~ by the union that the employer is cstopped • ·
from questioning the status of the salesmen or members of the Field ·
Force· being not workmen \vith(n tho 1;,caning ·of the expression in
the Act- must be rejected either on the princi pie of ·~es judicata or
pr!nciples analago1is to res judicata or 011 the pdncipic of is~ue of .
· estoppel or promissory. estoppel and neither of the three contentions D
is available to the union notwithstanding the foct whether the agree-
meiit .exists· or· stands repudiated and therefore,. the Trihnnal was
justified in .rejecting_the contention of thC union. Mr. Pai in support.
C?f the s.ub1nission urg~d ~hat at no timC as the s·ta~us of the salesmen
as not being \Vork1nell or otherwise was ever directlv and stibstaritiallv
· !11 issue in c;rlier referc.nc_es, _the i.Ssue.cann_ot be rej~·cted on the· grou.nd E
of res J1.1dicata and at any rate there:: \vas no dee.is ion on tllis issue and
therefore the principle of.issue "st6Jl'pel cannot. preclude. the employer
froi11 raising the contention. ·Mr. Ra1nan1urthi, on the Other hand,
contended that' it is not the contention. of the union that the issue
about tile status of thi; salesi11e_n is res judic<ita but ·,vJ1at is res
. . . _is"thc ·existence· and bindin!!
judicata ~ .
·-character of the .iigree1nent..,
'
F
wb1ch· was directly· and st\bstantially in issue .between the patties
in the award given by Shri Roop Chandra and in· various other
awards.

In order to tlppfect-ate rival contentions it iS · necessai·y to' focUs
attention on the issue; framed by. Industrial Tribu.nal presided over G
by Shri Roop Chandra in f. D. No. 46 of _1966. These issues have
been extracted earlier. The most important issue was Issue No. J
about the existence of a binding agreement between the parties which
would preclude . the employer from ever guestioning the ;tatus of the
salesmen till the airee1nent reinains subsisting and till it is tern1inUted. · ; ff
. The issue \Vas : "is there any a·grcen1ent bet\vcen the co111pany ·.and·
.
326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 2 s.c.R .
. .
.. A .. its worklneu coyering inter a/la the question aboi1t tlie status 'of sales-
. meii ?' ·And the answer was : 'there is such a valid and subsisting
. agreeinent and that posiffdn was adopted by noneother than the
employerand the employer succeeded in getting the reference thrown-
• out at tlie threshold· on .the ground. that in view ·of the subsisting .
valid agreement betw<;en the parties, the union was est 0 pped fro1n
B ·raising a dispnte of a 0 all-India nature at.a regional ·level and it can
. : only be raised i1t Bombay and .therefore the Tnd11strial· Tribunal at
Delhi had no.jurisdiction to entertain the same ... Even if the-teclinicaJ ·
pri~ciple .of res Judic~ta is imported In the field of industrial adjudica-
tion, the issue about the existence of an .agreemen(was substant,ially
and directly in issue between the pa;:ties .in the earlier proceedings
and was decided in the offirrnative that there exists.such an agreement.
In the reference fi:om \vhich tlie present a.l.'pe3l arises, the employer
. • ·contended that theie is no such concluded' agreement as pleaded· bji
the union; and ·therefore, the issue that arises is: whether there is ·such
an -agreement as piea"ded on behalf ~ni1eunio11. But that was the
specific issu.e in Reference I D. No; 46 of l966"between the .same.
n p-arties. To. that extent, one.ca~·say that unless Change ~f Circumstances
are established, the issue would be res ;udlcata. But" we consider
it i1;appropriate. to usher in this techn.ical concept. of res judiqata
pervading the field of aivil justice. into.the field of industrial arbitration.·
The apprc\lons;on' :vas voiced by ·this .Court in Slwhdara (Delhi)
Saharanpur Light Raf/.ivay Co. Ltd. v. Shahdara (Delhi) Saharanp111·
E Railwav. Wor/.:crs Union'!) when it said that it is doubtful whether the
w.' - •

. principles anaJC,gous to resjudicaid C<ln properly be applied _to industfial
'.ldju~ica~i-on: We are not una\var~of the legal pq~tion that pr_inciplC:

F
of res judicatri was invoked and applied by this --Court in Workmen of
. Straw Board M~nufacturing. Co. Ltd. v, · M/s Straw ·}Jom:d Manufac-.
·_turin"ft Co. Ltd.(2> One can safely Say that prilicipte analogous tO res
judic~ta can be av~iled ;r to scuttel any atte;npt at raising' industrial
- . disputes repeat"'~dly in de~ance uf Operative &ettlernen~s a1_id a\vards.
-~.
-
But this hig'1'y technical concept of civil justice may be kept ia precise
conlill~d limits in the fi~ld of -industrial arbitration \vhich n1ust a·s.far
as pOs.Sibie: be hept free· from 'such t!'.lchni_caJities whiCh th\vart resolu- ·
tion ·_of industri{tl disputes. We however proceed on the assumption
G . that· an industrial dispute may be rejected. on the principle ai:alogous
· to res ji1dicata. The matter however, may be fooked at from a s1ightly
difforent angle. The_ concept of compulsory adjuditation of industrial
..
disputes "''a.s .st~tutqrily uShered in with . a vic\V to· pro.viding a. forun1
. .

H
1
at
(1) [i%9] I L.L,j,734 742 .
. (2) [1974] 3 S.C.R. 703. . ·. '
,WORKMEN l'. HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD" (DesAI, J,) '327

. arid compelling .the parties to resort to the forum for arbitration so A
· as to avoid. confrontation and dislocation in industry. ·A developing
country like India. can ill-afford dislocation h1 industrial production .
. Peace and harmony in industry and uninterrupted production being
the demands of the time, it was considered wise to arm the Govern-
. rnent with power to compel the parties to re5ort to arbitr,,tion a.rid
' as a necessary corollary to avoid confrontation at;d trial of strength, B
,. which were considered wasteful from · national and· public interest
.poini of view. A welf~re State can ill-afford. to 16.ok askance at
· industrhl unrest and industrial . disputes. (See 'JJahyabhai Ranch·.·
hoddas Shah v. Jayanti/a/ Mohanlat."l The..Act die! not confer till the
introduction of Chapters V-A and V-B, a1w special' benefits or enforce•
· able benefits on. the workmen. The Att was designed to provide
•
c
a self-contained Code to co~pcl . the. parties to resort to industrial
arbitration 'for the resolution of existing or 'apprehended disputes
without prescribing statutory norms for varied and variegated industrial
relation norms so that the forums created tor resolution of disputes
may remain unhampered by any statutory control and devise rational
norms keeping pace .. with i,mproved industrial relations .reflecting D
and imbibing .socio-economic'justice. If this is the underlying object
behind enactment of the Act, the Court by interpretative process mlist
strive.to reduce the field of.conflict and expand the area of agreement
and show its preference for· uphcilding agreements sanctified by
mutuality and consensus in larger public interest; namely,' to eschew
industrial strife, confrontation and· consequent wasfrge. · E
. .
The parties fo .this case .entered into a solemn agreement. It
a
is hot for moment suggested that the agreement has been terminated.
The only argument put forward on behalf ~f fhe .employer was th.at the·
union has repudiated the agreement by raising disputes of an all, India.
nature at a regional level and thereby committed breach of the. agree-
ment This contention is entirely wiihout merits. What has happened
is. that the union raised certain dispµtes which according to the 4nion
we're of a,.regional nature and which it was not estopped froin raising
in the teeth of the, terms of the binding agreement between the parties.
On the other hand, the employer contended that the disputes so raised
were of an all-India nature; Both sides swore by the agreement, the G'
,<:iitfereiice in.approach being: whether the dispute was of an all,India:
·nature 'or of \egional nature .. The emerging situation .would be th.at
neiteer tile union repudiated the agreement n·or the employer and till
.the present dispute, both swore by the agreement. The divergence in··
a1
· (I) [1'B] Lab; & Industrial C.ases 967, ·
328 SUPRFM~ COURT REPORTS [J 984]2 S.C R.

A the approach was as to the interpretation. the coverage, the ambit
. and the width of the agreement. · Both the parties swore by .the agree-
ment but differed in their approach and interpretation and .the forum
namely the fndustrial Tribunal cimsistenly upheld at the instance
of the employer that there was a binding valitl agreement subsisting
between the parties forbidding the union from raising a dispute of
B an all-India nature at the regional level and .succeeded in getting· the
reference thrown out at the threshold on the ground that the tlispute·
was of an all-fndia nature and not of a regional level as contended
by the'union .. This constitutes adherance to ag.reement., performance
· of tbe agreement, implementation of.the agreement and being bound
by the agreement. ·This cond,uct in no sense can be said. to constitute .
c .. repudii\lion of agreement by tbe union. Unilateral repudiation of an ·
agreement, as contended by Mr. Pai, does not result in termination ·
of;· solemn agreement because the. wrongful repudiation can be correc-
ted by ·enforcement of agreement through machinery provided by
the statute. ·And that.is what the employer has succeeded in achieving.
The employer relying on' the agreement got a number of refeiences
D rejected 'on the pr<liminary objection founded on the agreement.
· The employer cannot therefore be heard to say that the attempted 'r-'
repudiation by the union, if any, permits the employer to disown the
sa1ne. when it sui.~s it. Unilaterai' repudiation is·.distinct fron1 terminri-
tion .and an agree1nent/settlen1ent r.e1nains. In force :-ind binding till'
terminated and does .not come to· an end by unilatera 1 repudiation .
. E.. But it mlist be 1nade clear that there is no s·t1bstance in t11c contention
of Mr. Pai that the union repudiated the agreement. If thus; the
employer swore by Ilic' agreement, rdied upon it '1nd succes.sfully ~
contested the clai1n 'of the ~inion, it cannnt now be penn;tted to back
·out from such solemn abgreement and apart from the technicality

F
of the issue being res judicata or issue estojJpel, industrial peace and
<har·mony, good. behaviour and fair rel_atiofi \vith \Vorkn-!en estOpes
i ...
the _employer fr0m either repudiating the agreement or contending.
that tl;e agreement ~as not a concluded agreement but <fn incl1oate
one. Jn this connectinn, we may profitably refer to Western India ..,-
Match Co. v. Their Workmen'" w'herein this . Court observed ;s
urider :

"It is nqt out of place to 1nentioi1 in-this connection that
l1n so~e i)revious occasions the 1nanagement itself has treated.
these categories as workmen within the meaning of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act. The management's contention that
H,
{IJ [1964] 3 S.C.R. 560 at 566.
WORK'IBN v. HINDUSTAN. LEVER LTD. (Desai, J.) 329

the Tribunal has erred in thinking that the inspectors, sales-· A
men and retail salesmen are work1nen must- therefore be
'rejected."
••
Same view was ado'ptcd in Alluminhm1 Factor)/ Work~l's' Union v.
Indian A!'.1111iniuin Co. Lfd. 11 > Jn. fRat case·. Certain corresrnndcnce
which passed before rnd after the awards betwec1i \he parties ~as B
referred to. Thi'> corre<;po:ide;ic(' sh,_,wed that the ar:~1Jlant/urti611
and the steff associetion of the "'""µqny foily· accepted the principle
that Supervisors wo<.ilcl no lr.nger be regarded as workmen and that
Supervisors had resigned from-1ncmbership of.the wor-krnen's unions.
. ' .
These ave.rtments in the correspondence regarding the status of the
Supervisors being not workmen was held binding between the parties c
and both ihe Industrial Tribunal·and this Court declined· to examin.e
. the. contention about the status on merits. If the union can be held
bound to .such an inferred agreement from correspondence, the·
employer conceding the statUS or to be preCise concedii}g not t.o contest
the· status of salesmen would. equally be binding on the e1n']Jloyer. ,
-<(. It would thus appear that the employer/management was held hound· 'D
not ~y any spe~ific agreemen.t but an agrcen1ent 5pclt-out of its con~·
duct in Western India Matr;:h Co. case and asserti-Ons in correspondence
in [ndia Alun1inium Co. case trcati'ng certain categ·orics ofthi:: workmen
as. workmen or not as \\'Orkrne1} resp~ctively \Vithjn the meaning· or
the expression in the Act. then at a later stage, the employer and the
- u~ion respectively \Vere estopped frnn1 contendifig to ·the contrary. E·
The case before u.s is much_stronger. in that there is a conclude4 binding
. agreement b2-tween th>;! parties neither repudiaj:ed ·nor. terminated
till today which .provides that the "employer on its part will not contest
the.status of the membership of the Field Force including the salesmen
em.ployed by the .C~mpany as workmen within the meaning of· the

,
exp~ession in the Act. Therefore, ·the Tribunal c~nimitted a seriQus F
error, apparent on record i1~ holding that there .\vas no ~Oncluded
agr,:cmont between. the parties as. emerging from Exs. W-2, W-3 and
· W-4.

Th.e Tribunal 1~ega~ived the contention of the union that the
employer was estopped from challenging the status of the workmen G
also. Oil the gr..ound that 'there Cbn be 110 estoppeJ against the S~at.ute. •
We must confess th0-t ~ven.Mr. Pai 9id not appear to be very enthusias-
tic to support the finding of the Tribunal that even if there is a binding
·agreement ~etween the parties and th.erefore, the employe 1s · estopped
H
(1) [1962] 1 L.L.J. 210. . .
330 .SUPREME. COURT REPORTS [1984] 2 S.C.R,
"
A from questioni1,g· the status of salesmen as being. workmen, it cannot·
be availed of by the union because there can be no estoppel.against •
a statute. We. find it very difficult not only to unnderstand but to
appreciate the approach and the finding of the Tribunal in this behalf.• .
. . pro~ision
There is no statutory . that a· status
, . of a .·person invoking
.
the jurisdiction of the Tribunal must be adjudicated upon notwithstan-
B ding that no contention· io t!iaf effect is·. raised.. No statutory pro-
·vis{on was brought to our notice which would. be rendered nugatory
or ineffective if the. status of workman is not questioned. ·Nor it
can he s~id that the employer has contracted out of the. benef)tsof a
statute. Whether a particular, person is a workman or not depends-
upo·n factua.1 matrix .. Workman is defined ·;n Sec. ·2(s) of the Act. ·
c The ingredients and· the incidents of the definiti"on when .satisfied, the .
person sati;fying the same would be a workman. Negaiively, if
0

someone fails to satisfy 6ne or other ingredient. or incident of the
definiti'on, he may not be held to be workman within the meaning of
the expression in ihe Act. The.re is no provision in the Act. which
obilges the Industrial Tribunal or other forums set up under the Act
D . to. decide even in the absence of a contention from the employer, ·a
preliminary issue w!iether the ·pcrs·on who has· invoked its jurisdiction
is· a workman or not. There is· no such obligation cast statutorily ·
on the Tribu11al. ,If the employer .does not .arise the contention ,about
the status of the workman approacliing the Tribunal, the Tribunal
,h~s no obligation, to ~ccide the status .of the persq11 whether' he ,is a
workman or not. . Conversely, if the employer agrees not to ques!fon ~ .
the status in future it would only imply that such a contention would
not· only be not raised· but if raised it would not bepressed and if
pressed 'should be negatived in view· o.f the binding agreement: The ..
resultant situation would be that the Tribunal must proceed on the
assumption that no such conten.tion is raised and required to be
F ·adjudicated upon: .lf the contention is not raised, the Tribunal is
u.nder no. obligation, st10 1notil or on its o·wn to raise and decide such
a contention tci clothe itself with jurisdiction to.adjudicate. upon the ·
. dispute. The Tribunal derives its.jurisdiction by the order of refe-
rence and not on the determination of a jurisdictional fact which it
must of 1;ocessity decide to acquire jurisdjctioh.· Therefore, the
G · Tribunal was clearly in error in holding that the contention canvassed
• o'n beh~lf of the union would permit it to taise estoppel against' a
. statute. Undoubtedly,. it is true that there cari be no estoppel againsf
the Jaw of the land .. If a party is. estopped by doing·a thing· which
it is under a legal disability to perform or forbearing to do something.
H which fr is his duty to do; the result would be an enlargement of the
.. contractual or other rights ailowed by law or the'.r alteratio~: The
•

WORKMEN v.. HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. (Desai. J-)' 331

Cour·t e11forces 'the performance of statutory duty and declines to
't·· .• · interfere A
for the assistance of persons who seek its aid to relieve the~
0

. aga,inst the express statutory provision. Approving the dicta Jn.
Maddison v. Alderson(", this Court observed in K. Romadas Shenoy
. v; The Chief Officers, Town Municipal .Council, Udipi and Ors.,t•l
that an excess of statutory power · could not be validated by
acquiescenc;e. in Or by the operatio·n of ~stoppel. Is. that the -situation B··
here ? The Tribunal observed. that notwithstanding the fact that
the employer has agreed' to recognise the .union as representative
of the Field ·Force including the salesmen, agreement between·
. the parties cannot override the statute and if th\'refore Shri A.K.
. Basu is not . workman under ·the Act, the agreement between the
union. and the emoloyer. cannot ·confer on the Tribunal any jurisdic-

'
·C
. lion to give any- relief to him under the Act. Tb.c Tribunal. com-
pletely misdirected itself when it assumed and arrogated to itself tj:le .
. obligatory duty in the absence of an impermissible contention, to
.raise one and proceeded . to adjudicate upon, notwithstanding the
fact if Hie agreement. is .subsisting no such contention can be raised
and if raised has. to be ignored as an irrelevant pleading. In this. · D
a
connection, it may be. recalled ihat when reference is·made under
Sec. 10 of the Act; Rule .10-B of the Industrial Disputes (Central)
·Rutes, 1957 obliges the workman involved in the reference to file.
with tl1e Tribunal a statement of demands relating only to the issues
as are included fo the order of reference and simultaneously serve
a copy ofthe same to the employer. Sub-rule (2) enjoins the employer
within ·two weeks .ohhe receipt of the statemerit·of claim to file its
a
rejoinqer aud simultaneously serve copy ofthe same on the workman.
Ordinarily,, the Tribunal ·after ascertaining on ·what issue the parties .·
are at variance rais.es i.ssues to focus aitention on points in dispute.
In industrial adjudication,: issues are of two typ_es : (i)· those referred
by the Governmei;it for adjudication aud set oat in the order of reference. F
and (ii) incidental issues ·which· are· sometimes the issues· of law or
. iss·ues of mixed law and fact. The' Tribunal may.'as well frame pre~
liminary issues if the poiut on which the parties are ai varia11ce, as
. reflected in the preljffiinary issue, o/OU!d go to the root of the matter.
But the Tribun&l cannot travel beyond the pleadings and arrogate to
itself the power to raise issues which the parties to the reference are G
precluded or prohibited from r11ising; to wit if the employer. does
riot q11estion the status of the worken, (he Tribunal cannot suo inotu
raise the issue and proceed to adjudicate upoil the same and throw out

(l) [18831 8 A.C. 467. H
(2) [19751 1 S.C.R 680.
'.

332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 2 ~.Cll.

A the reference on the sole ground that the concerned -workman was
. not .a workman .w;thin the meaning of the expression of the Act. And
it is' not obligatory upqn the employer i1ecessarily to raise \he conten-
"tion that the co.ncerned workman was not a workma1i within the.
meaning of "the expression .under the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal
was wholly in error in holding that if the contention of ·the union
B ~ere· to prevail, the well laid rnle of no estoppel against a statute
would be violate<).

Having examined all the diniensions of the matter, it is crystal
\

.
.
clear and is indisputably established that the agreement relied upon
by the union is a valid subsisting agreement. It is in force. It is \.~'-.
'
neither . repudiated. nor terminated. Tt is binding upon both the
parties. Once the agreen:ient is held to· be binding, the employer
is estopped fro;,, contending that the workmen involved in the dispute
wbo were sales1ncn wen~ not work1nen within the nleaning. of the
I
expression undei· the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal was in error in
undertaking to examine that contention and answer it. That part of
·n the order/award of the Tribunal is unsustainable and must be quashed
and set aside. ·

. We accordingly, direct the Tribui1al to ·proceed to deteni1inc
. the dispute on merits without concerning itself with .the consideration
of the question whether the concerned workmen were workmei1 within t
E the meaning of the expression under the Act.. This appeal accordingly
succeeds-and' the award of the Tribunal to the extent indicated herein

F
is quashed and set aside' and the matter is remitted to the lndustri_al
Tribunal with a direction lo proceed further in the light of the observa-
tions made in thi.• judgment. The respondent shall pay to the appel-
lant cosis quantified at Rs; 3,000. · ·
-
N.V;K. Appeal allowed.

•