Case: Cooper Engineering Limited Vs. D.M. Aney &amp; Others

the various clauses in the two settlements that they related to payment of wages including dearness allowance, which had the character of an interim relief, as awarded by the Wage Board. It is the further view of the High Court that when the final recommendations of the Wage Board are made, the workmen were at liberty to raise demands regarding wages and dearness allowance legally payable to them. The agreement, if at all, was not to raise any dispute pending the final recommendations of the Wage Board.12. We have ourselves gone rough the various clauses in the two statements and we are in entire agreement with the view of the High Court. As there has been a very elaborate discussion by the High Court and as we entirely agree with its reasoning, we do not propose to cover the ground over again. As we are now on the limited question regarding the competency of the State Government to make the reference, it must be held that the State Governments view that the settlements related only to the interim relief is a possible one in the circumstances of this case. Hence, we cannot say that the reference made by the State Government was incompetent.13. We express no opinion on the question regarding the right of the third respondent to terminate the two agreements in question because there is a controversy as to whether, at the relevant date, the third respondent represented the majority of the workmen bound by these agreements The claim of the third respondent is that it represented the majority of such workmen. The Tribunal, when it adjudicates the dispute, will have to investigate the question when considering the points covered by the settlements as well as the question whether those settlements have been properly terminated, when the reference was made by the State Government.14. In this view, we are not referring on the relevant provisions of the Act; nor do we deal with the decisions cited on both sides.15. The further contention that is taken by Mr. Shroff is based upon the decisions of this Court in Union of India v. M/s. Anglo Afghan Agencies Ltd., (1968) 2 SCR 366 = (AIR 1968 SC 718 ) and Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. The Ulhasnagar Municipal Council, (1973) 3 SCR 854 = (AIR 1971 SC 1021 ). According to Mr. Shroff, the Minister for Labour of Maharashtra, at a meeting of the employers and representative of the employees, held on September 9, 1968, stated:"The Govt. of Maharashtra would not refer disputes on wages and dearness allowance to adjudication in the case of engineering establishments covered by the Wage Board, if the concerned employer agreed to implement the recommendations, interim as well as final, of the Central Wage Board, as accepted by the Government of India."On the, basis of this statement of the Minister, the appellant implemented the interim relief and also assured the authorities concerned that it will implement the final recommendations of the Wage Board, as the appellant has acted on the representations made by the Minister to its prejudice, the reference of the dispute for adjudication was not justified. Mr. Shroff referred us to the letter dated September 24, 1965, written to the concerned Minister for Labour by the Indian Engineering Association (Western Region] and Engineering Association of India (Western Region) Bombay. This letter refers to the statement made by the Minister on September 9, 1965. He also invited our attention to the letter dated July 2, 1968, written by the appellant to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Poona. In that letter, the appellant had stated that it had agreed with its workers to implement the interim relief granted by the wage Board. The appellant gave an assurance to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Bombay, that it will implement the recommendations of the Wage Board. for engineering industries, as accepted by the Central Government.16. The Act gives power to the State Government to refer a dispute for adjudication. As to how far, by a Minister making a statement the Government can be relieved of its obligation under the Act, is a debatable question. It is, however, not necessary for us to go into this aspect in this particular case. None of the settlements entered into by the appellant with its workmen gives any indication that the said settlements were being made in view of the statement made by the Minister. On the other hand, we have already pointed out that every one of the settlements entered is preceded by a demand made by the union concerned. It is really in the interest of industrial peace that the appellant appears to have entered into those settlements. Therefore, the decisions relied on by Mr. Shroff do not apply in this case.17. Lastly Mr. Shroff contended that the State Government declined to make a reference in the case of the Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. specifically on the ground that the said company had implemented the interim recommendations of the Wage Board and that it was also prepared to implement its final recommendations. But in the case of the appellant, the State Government made the reference and as such there has been discrimination.18. It is no doubt true that in the letter dated June 8, 1968, sent by the State Government to Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd., the Government states that it is not making a reference regarding the dispute between the said company and its workmen. The reason for not making the reference is also stated to be the implementation by the company of the interim recommendations of the Wage Board and its preparedness to implement the final recommendations also.19. We find, however, from the judgment of the High Court that this question of, discrimination with special reference to the Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd. has not been argued by the appellant. The inference under such circumstances is that such a contention was not pressed before the High Court. Hence we decline to go into that question.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]11. Though there has been a very elaborate consideration by the High Court regarding the competency of the third respondent to terminate the settlements, its ultimate decision is rested on a construction of the two settlements dated November 1, 1966 and May 13, 1967. According to the High Court, it is abundantly clear on a reading of the various clauses in the two settlements that they related to payment of wages including dearness allowance, which had the character of an interim relief, as awarded by the Wage Board. It is the further view of the High Court that when the final recommendations of the Wage Board are made, the workmen were at liberty to raise demands regarding wages and dearness allowance legally payable to them. The agreement, if at all, was not to raise any dispute pending the final recommendations of the Wage Board.12. We have ourselves gone rough the various clauses in the two statements and we are in entire agreement with the view of the High Court. As there has been a very elaborate discussion by the High Court and as we entirely agree with its reasoning, we do not propose to cover the ground over again. As we are now on the limited question regarding the competency of the State Government to make the reference, it must be held that the State Governments view that the settlements related only to the interim relief is a possible one in the circumstances of this case. Hence, we cannot say that the reference made by the State Government was incompetent.13. We express no opinion on the question regarding the right of the third respondent to terminate the two agreements in question because there is a controversy as to whether, at the relevant date, the third respondent represented the majority of the workmen bound by these agreements The claim of the third respondent is that it represented the majority of such workmen. The Tribunal, when it adjudicates the dispute, will have to investigate the question when considering the points covered by the settlements as well as the question whether those settlements have been properly terminated, when the reference was made by the State Government.It is no doubt true that in the letter dated June 8, 1968, sent by the State Government to Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd., the Government states that it is not making a reference regarding the dispute between the said company and its workmen. The reason for not making the reference is also stated to be the implementation by the company of the interim recommendations of the Wage Board and its preparedness to implement the final recommendations also.19. We find, however, from the judgment of the High Court that this question of, discrimination with special reference to the Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd. has not been argued by the appellant. The inference under such circumstances is that such a contention was not pressed before the High Court. Hence we decline to go into that question.