Case: Western India Match Company Ltd Vs. Workmen

It plainly follows From Sections 4, 10 and 13 (2) that the inconsistent part of the special agreement cannot prevail over the Standing Order. As long as the Standing Order is in force, it is binding on the Company as well as the workmen. To uphold, the special agreement would mean giving a go-by to the Acts principle of three-party participation in the settlement of terms of employment. So we are of opinion that the inconsistent part of the special agreement is ineffective and unenforceable. 10. It is pointed out on behalf of the Company that S. 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act provides that any settlement between the employer and the workman is binding on them. It is said that accordingly the special agreement in the present case would be binding on Prem Singh. It is not necessary to construe Section 18 in this case because it is governed by die provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act. Section 6-B (1) of this Act deals with a settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workmen otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding. Sub-section (2) thereof provides that after the settlement is arrived at, the parties to the settlement or any one of them may apply to the Conciliation Officer of the area concerned for the registration of the settlement. Sub-section (3) is important. It provides that while considering the question of the registration of a settlement, the Conciliation Officer shall examine whether it is inexpedient to do so on public ground affecting social justice or whether the settlement has been brought about as a result of collusion, fraud or misrepresentation. We think that the word may in sub-section (2) should be read as shall in the context of sub-section (3). If social justice is to be ensured and if collusion, fraud or misrepresentation is to be eliminated it is necessary that every privately negotiated settlement should be submitted for registration to the Conciliation Officer. It may be observed that the U. P. Act also insists on the three party participation in the settlement of terms of employment. In the result, the Company cannot enforce the special agreement on the pretext that Prem Singh had voluntarily agreed to it. The conciliation Officer having had no say in the making this agreement, the consent of Prem Singh is meaningless. 11. It is then said that the Standing Order can be modified in a suitable case by the Labour Court. In this connection reliance is placed on the Management of Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen. (1968) 1 SCR 581 = (AIR 1968 SC 585 ). It is true that the Labour Court may determine terms and conditions of employment which may be inconsistent with the Standing Order. But in the present case the reference did not give jurisdiction to the Labour Court to determine terms and conditions of employment of Prem Singh. The reference directed the Labour Court to decide whether the discharge of Prem Singh from service was legal or justifiable. 12. Shri Agarwala has argued that the Standing Order is a law and accordingly the special agreement in contravention of it is void. In support of his argument he has relied on a number of decisions of this Court. Shri Daphtary has argued to the contrary and has relied on some other decisions. In the view that we have taken earlier, it is not necessary to consider this question. Accordingly, we do not refer to the authorities cited before us. 13. Another contention of Shri Daphtary is that in the circumstances of this case the Labour Court should not have made an order for reinstatement of Prem Singh. Stress is laid on the assertion in the order of discharge that his work during the entire probationary period was not satisfactory. In support of his argument Shri Daphtary has relied on the Hindustan Steels Ltd. Rourkela v. Roy (A. K. and others) (l970) 1 Lab LJ 228 = (AIR 1970 SC 1401 ). This decision does not assist him for in the case before us the Company did not plead in its written statement filed before the Labour Court that the work of Prem Singh was unsatisfactory during the probationary Period, nor did it lead any evidence in proof of his unsatisfactory work.The argument does not appear to have beer raised in the special Leave petition also.Accordingly, it is not possible to permit this argument to be raised now. (See Binny Ltd. v. Their Work men, (1972) 1 Lab LJ 478 = (AIR 1972 SC 1975 ) and the Management of Panitole Tea Estate v. The Workmen (1971) 3 SCR 774 = (AIR 1971 SC 2171 ). 14. In the end, Shri Daphtary has urged that as the Labour Court has found that the discharge of Prem Singh from service was neither mala fide nor a measure of victimisation, he should not have been reinstated to service. Reliance is placed on the Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen (1963) 2 Lab LJ 78 (SC), M/s. Francis Klein and Co. (P) Ltd. v. The Workmen AIR 1971 SC 2414 and the Air-India Corpn. Bombay v. V. A. Rebellow (1972) 1 Lab LJ 501 = (AIR l972 SC 1343). It is settled law now that the Labour Court may interfere with the order of discharge where it is satisfied that it was made mala fide or was a measure of victimization or unfair labour practice. It has also been held by this Court that the Labour Court may interfere with the order of discharge if it finds that the order is arbitrary or capricious or so unreasonable as to lead to the inference that it is not made bona fide. As there was no plea and no evidence to show that the work of Prem Singh was unsatisfactory, the conclusion is obvious that the order of discharge is arbitrary. Accordingly, the Labour Court could interfere and make an order of reinstatement.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]According to the Standing Order, a workman shall not be kept on probation for more than two months. If he has worked during these two months to the satisfaction of the (company, he becomes permanent. But as a result of special agreement, even though he has worked during these two months to the satisfaction of the Company, he will not be a permanent workman. While the Standing Order says "Confirm him on the expiry of two months, the special agreement says: "No, wait till the expiry of six months." There is thus a conflict between them. They cannot co-exist. So we are of opinion that the special agreement is inconsistent with the Standing Order to the extent of the additional four months probation9. The special agreement, in so fat as it provides for additional four months of probation, is an act in contravention of the Standing Order. We have already held that. It plainly follows From Sections 4, 10 and 13 (2) that the inconsistent part of the special agreement cannot prevail over the Standing Order. As long as the Standing Order is in force, it is binding on the Company as well as the workmen. To uphold, the special agreement would mean giving a go-by to the Acts principle of three-party participation in the settlement of terms of employment. So we are of opinion that the inconsistent part of the special agreement is ineffective and unenforceableWe think that the word may in sub-section (2) should be read as shall in the context of sub-section (3). If social justice is to be ensured and if collusion, fraud or misrepresentation is to be eliminated it is necessary that every privately negotiated settlement should be submitted for registration to the Conciliation Officer. It may be observed that the U. P. Act also insists on the three party participation in the settlement of terms of employment. In the result, the Company cannot enforce the special agreement on the pretext that Prem Singh had voluntarily agreed to it. The conciliation Officer having had no say in the making this agreement, the consent of Prem Singh is meaninglessThis decision does not assist him for in the case before us the Company did not plead in its written statement filed before the Labour Court that the work of Prem Singh was unsatisfactory during the probationary Period, nor did it lead any evidence in proof of his unsatisfactory work.The argument does not appear to have beer raised in the special Leave petition also.Accordingly, it is not possible to permit this argument to be raised nowIt is settled law now that the Labour Court may interfere with the order of discharge where it is satisfied that it was made mala fide or was a measure of victimization or unfair labour practice. It has also been held by this Court that the Labour Court may interfere with the order of discharge if it finds that the order is arbitrary or capricious or so unreasonable as to lead to the inference that it is not made bona fide. As there was no plea and no evidence to show that the work of Prem Singh was unsatisfactory, the conclusion is obvious that the order of discharge is arbitrary. Accordingly, the Labour Court could interfere and make an order of reinstatement.