iminal Appeal No 83 of 1959
Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 25 1958 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Revisions Nos 593 and 594 of 1958 arising out of the judgment and order dated March 3 1958 of the Additional Sessions Judge Monghyr in Criminal Appeal No 286 of 1956
D P Singh and R H Dhebar for the appellant
C P Lal for the respondent
October 14
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR J
This is an appeal brought in pursuance of a certificate under article 1341c of the Constitution against the judgment and order of acquittal of the High Court of Patna
There were certain disputes between the workmen and the Management of Mankatha Distillery of which the proprietor is the respondent
On November 23 1953 a petition was submitted on behalf of the workmen of the Distillery to the Assistant Labour Commissioner Bhagalpur which was signed by one Banarsi Choudhuri on behalf of himself and for and on behalf of the workmen of the Distillery
In this petition certain grievances of the workmen were set out
Con ciliation proceedings were started and there was an agreement on December 5 1953 which the High Court has described as some sort of agreement 
On January 12 1954 an application was made for the registration of the Union of the workmen of the Distillery under the Indian Trade Unions Act and the same was registered on March 23 1954 under the 3 name and style of Mankaths Distillery Mazdoor Panchayat
The Distillery was closed and the workmen were discharged and thereafter on February 19 1954 the General Secretary of the Mankatha Distillery Mazdoor Panchayat even though it was not registered at the time sent a letter to the Management protesting against the discharge of the workmen without payment of compensation and objecting to the inten tion of the employers to re start the factory after employing other workmen
It was also stated therein that the workers who had been discharged had been working for some years and a list of such workmen was attached to the letter
The following portion of the letter is relevant for the purposes of this appeal  All the persons named below shall work in the factory in legal manner on monthly salary on permanent basis
It is not only hoped rather fully believed that you would consider the above facts and gladly accept the same
On getting a stisfactory reply all the workers who had been working in your factory since years would report themselves to duty and work according to your orders 
Although it is addressed to the proprietors of the Dis tillery it seems to have been sent to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour Bhagalpur where it was received on February 25 1954
The following endorsements were made on this letter  Discussed with you
The management is re
quested to attend conciliation proceeding on 10th March 1954 at 11 am
The Union is also informed accordingly 
Another petition dated March 51954 was sent by the General Secretary of the Distillery Mazdoor Panchayat to the Assistant Labour Commissioner in which the names of all the persons who had been freshly employed by the proprietors were mentioned and it was prayed that those who were discharged at the time of the closing of the factory may be reinstated and wages paid and a request was made to the Assistant Labour 4 and get the workmen reinstated
The order on this petition was  The parties have been called to morrow in my office for conciliation
The result of the proceeding may be awaited
 On March 18 1954 a settlement was arrived at between the management and the workers which is signed by the Conciliation Officer appointed under section 4 of the Act 14 of 1947 hereinafter termed for the sake of brevity the Act
This document was signed by the proprietor and the manager of the Distillery and by Banarsi Choudhuri General Secretary of the Workers  Panchayat and also by six other members of the Panchayat who were evidently the members of the Executive Committee of the Panchayat
The terms of the settlement were as follows  1
It is agreed that the workers  named in Schedule  A  shall be taken to jobs without break in their services
The new hands appointed after the closure of the factory shall be discharged
If three shifts will start and any other increased opportunity of employment will be available in the factory the management shall employ only those workers who are left to day and who had worked in August 1953 and September 1953 in order of seniority
Shri Banarsi Choudhry Balmiki Singh Bhaso Singh and Kaltu  Singh are accused in a case pending before the Court at Monghyr
The Management agrees that if they will be acquitted from the court they will be given jobs
All the workers will be put in permanent basis as they were previously
The order putting them in the temporary basis after the opening of the Mill is cancelled
The arrears will be paid on monthly basis as before instead of weekly basis as at present after the re opening of the factory
The grievances raised by the workers and covered by the agreement dated the 5th December 5 1953 will be decided by the Labour Commissioner Bihar Patna and his decision shall be acceptable to and final for the parties
The work of the factory will be resumed immediately
The workers will continue to have all the benefits and privileges which are guaranteed by law or usage and custom
The workers will not be victimised for their Trade Union activities
The prosecution case is that the terms of the settlement were not carried out in that the old workmen were not re employed and the newly employed workmen were not discharged
Thereupon the respondent and the manager of the Distillery one Ram Narain Lal were prosecuted on a complaint filed by the Labour Superintendent Mr L D Singh after sanction of the Government of Bihar had been obtained
Both the accused persons were convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs 150 each or in default one month s simple imprisonment
The learned Magistrate held that there was an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Act and that the conciliation settlement dated March 18 1954 was a valid settlement and the respondent failed to implement the first term of the settlement
Against this order an appeal was taken to the Sessions Court and the Third Add1
Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal
He confirmed the findings of the learned Magistrate
Against this order of the Sessions Judge an appeal was taken to the High Court by the respondent only and the High Court set aside the order of conviction and acquitted the accused
It held that there was no recognised Union though there was  some kind of a vague Union  existing and that because the Conciliation Officer had visited the Distillery without giving a reasonable notice the  decision of the Conciliation Officer on 18 3 1954 must therefore be deemed to be without jurisdiction  and that there was no agreement arrived at between the proprietor on one side and the  labourers  as a whole on the other and  it is preposterous to suppose that because some labourers 6 had signed the settlement that it bound all the labourers
It seems to me that there is a serious defect in this settlement which is described as a decision of the Conciliation Officer dated 18 3 1954 
On the ground therefore that the settlement was not a settlement which was binding on the respondent the conviction was set aside
It would be an erroneous view if it were said that for a dispute to constitute an industrial dispute it is a requisite condition that it should be sponsored by a recognised union or that all the workmen of an industrial establishment should be parties to it
A dispute becomes an industrial dispute even where it is sponsored by a union which is not registered as in the instant case or where the dispute raised is by some only of the workmen because in either case the matter falls within section 183a and d of the Act
See also Newspapers Limited Allahabad vs The State Industrial Tribunal Uttar Pradesh 1
The settlement of March 18 1954 arrived at during the conciliation proceedings was signed by the General Secretary and members of the executive committee of the Union though it was unregistered at the time
We cannot therefore give our accord to the decision that the settlement of March 18 1954 was not a settlement binding between the parties
The scope and effect of section 112 was raised before us and it was argued that because the conciliation officer did not give any reasonable notice before he came to the Distillery on March 18 1954 the settlement was not a legal settlement and consequently was not binding on the parties and its breach could not fall within the penal consequences of section 29 of the Act
Now section 112 provides  A conciliation officer or a member of a Board or Court or the presiding officer of a Labour Court Tribunal or National Tribunal may for the purpose of inquiry into any existing or apprehended industrial dispute after giving reasonable notice enter the premises occupied by any establishment to which the dispute relates 
1 at 38
7 Section 11 only deals with the procedure and powers of the conciliation officers and sub section 2 authorises the conciliation officer to enter the premises occupied by any establishment to which the dispute relates after giving a reasonable notice
This notice is only for the purpose of entering the premises to make an enquiry into any existing industrial dispute or an apprehended industrial dispute and is merely to apprise the establishment that it is the conciliation officer who is coming and not an absolute stranger who has no connection at all with the machinery set up for the purposes of the Act
The absence of a notice under section 112 therefore does not affect the jurisdiction of the Conciliation Officer
As to what the conciliation officer can and should do is contained in section 12 of the Act
Sub section 1 empowers the conciliation officer to hold conciliation proceedings in the case of a public utility service after notice under section 22 whereby a mandatory duty is cast upon him to do so and in other disputes it is his discretion to hold conciliation proceedings in the prescribed manner
Under sub section
2 he has to investigate without delay the dispute in all matters affecting the merits of the dispute and he can do such things as he thinks necessary for inducing the parties to come to a fair and amicable settlement
Sub section 3 provides that if a settlement of the dispute is arrived at a report thereof shall be sent to the appropriate Govern ment and sub section
4 also provides for the sending of a similar report to the appropriate Government if no settlement is arrived at
Sub section
5 deals with the powers of the Government when a report is received as to the non settlement of the dispute and sub section
6 which was relied upon provides section 126  A report under this section shall be submitted within fourteen days of the commencement of the conciliation proceedings or within such shorter period as may be fixed by the appropriate Government
Provided that the time for the submission of the report may be extended by such period as may be agreed upon in writing by all the parties to the dispute
 8 It was argued that because the report had not been sent to the Government within fourteen days of the commencement of the conciliation proceedings the settlement arrived at was invalid and was not binding
This contention must be repelled because any contravention of section 126 may be a breach of duty on the part of the conciliation officer that does not affect the legality of the proceedings which terminated as provided in section 202 of the Act
It was so held by this Court in Andheri Marol Kurla Bus Service vs The State of Bombay 1
It cannot be said therefore that the settlement which was arrived at on March 18 1954 was not a legal settlement and that a breach of it would not attract the penal provisions of section 29 of the Act
After the case was decided by the Judicial Magistrate the parties arrived at a fresh settlement on October 6 1956 which recited  That this settlement made this day the 6th October 1956 at Patna settles all the pending grievances andor demands of workmen whatsoever 
As a result of this out of the discharged workmen 25 whose names are given in Appendix A attached to the compromise were reinstated with effect from October 8 1956
The claim with regard to the other discharged workmen was withdrawn
This settlement was accepted by the Industrial Tribunal by an order dated October 10 1956
This shows that all disputes between the parties have been settled and workmen have been reinstated
In view of this in the words of Subba Rao J in the State of Bihar vs Hiralal Kejrilal 2  public interest does not require that the stale matter should be resuscitated 
Therefore we do not think it necessary to interfere under article 136 with the order of the High Court
The appeal is therefore dismissed
Appeal dismissed
1 1969 Supp 2 SCR 734
2 1960 SCR 726 736


Summary:
The appellant was the holder of a personal inam which he had purchased from the original inamdar to whom a Sanad had been issued under Bombay Act No VII of 1863
He was paying Rs 7 as salami and Rs 6 3 0 as quit rent the full assessment of the land being Rs 56 8 0
The land which formed part of the inam was originally in a village but subsequently became a part of the suburbs of the city of Surat and as the land was being used for non agricultural purpose and a large bungalow had been erected on it the Collector decided that it was liable to non agricultural assessment under section 52 Of the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879 with effect from August 1 1955 in view of proviso b to section 4 Of the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act 1952
The appellant challenged the constitutionality of the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act 1952 on the grounds inter alia i that the Act was not protected by article 31 A of the Constitution of India as the property which bad been dealt with under the Act was not an estate and no compensation had been
provided in the Act for taking away the property of the appellant and 2 that in view of the fact that the holder of the inam was given a Sanad when his inam was recognised it was not open to the State of Bombay to enact a law which would in any way vary the terms of the Sanad
The appellant also contended that in any case the Collector s order to the effect that the land should be assessed under section 52 Of the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879 as non agricultural was incorrect because 1 section 7 Of the Act created an exception to sections 4 and 5 with respect to lands of inamdars used for building or for other non agricultural purposes and therefore the appellant s inam land which was used entirely for non agricultural purposes could not be assessed under section 5 of the Act 2 that section 52 Of the Code which gave power to the Collector to make assessments of lands not wholly exempt from the payment of land revenue did not apply to this case because here the assessment had been fixed under the provisions of Ch
VIII A of the Code and section 52 only applied when no assessment had been fixed under Ch
VIII A 952 Held i that the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act 1952 was valid and was protected by article 31 A of the Constitution of India
Gangadharrao Narayanrao Majumdar vs State of Bombay   Thakur jagannath Baksh Singh vs United Provinces 1946 FCR III and Maharaj Umeg Singh vs The State of Bombay   followed
2 that the exception made in section 7 Of the Act only saved such inam lands as were used for building or other non agricultural purposes by the inamdar from vesting in the Government but they remained subject to the provisions Of sections 4 and 5 of the Act
3 that section 52 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879 when it said that the section would not apply where assessment had been fixed under Ch
VIII A of the Code referred to actual assessment under the Chapter and not to what was deemed to be an assessment under that Chapter by virtue of section 117 R and that as the land in the present case was not wholly exempt from revenue and as in fact no assessment had been fixed on the land under Ch
VIII A section 52 would apply and the Collector would have power to make an assessment in the manner provided by that section