Case: The Sirsilk Ltd. And Others Vs. Government Of Andhra Pradesh &amp; Another

award once the Government has been informed jointly by the parties that a settlement binding under S. 18 (1) has been arrived at. It is true that S. 17 (1) is mandatory and ordinarily the Government has to publish an award sent to it by the tribunal; but where a situation like the one in the present cases arises which may lead to a conflict between a settlement under S. 18 (1) and an award binding under S. 18 (3) on publication, the only solution is to withhold the award from publication. This would not in our opinion in any way affect the mandatory nature of the provision in S. 17 (1), for the Government would ordinarily have to publish the award but for the special situation arising in such cases.7. The matter may be looked at in another way. The reference to the tribunal is for the purpose of resolving the dispute that may have arisen between employers and their workmen. Where a settlement is arrived at between the parties to a dispute before the tribunal after the award has been submitted to Government but before its publication, there is in fact no dispute left to be resolved by the publication of the award. In such a case, the award sent to Government may very well be considered to have become infructuous and so the Government should refrain from publishing such an award because no dispute remains to be resolved by it.8. It is however urged that the view we have taken may create a difficulty inasmuch as it is possible for one party or the other to represent to the Government that the settlement has been arrived at as a result of fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence or that it is not binding as the workmens representative had bartered away their interests for personal considerations. This difficulty, if it is a difficulty, will always be there even in a case where a settlement has been arrived at ordinarily between the parties and is binding under S. 18 (1), even though no dispute has been referred in that connection to a tribunal. Ordinarily however such difficulty should not arise at all, if we read Ss. 2 (p), 18 (1) and 19 (1) of the Act together. Section 2 (p) lays down what a settlement is and it includes "a written agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent to the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer." Therefore, the settlement has to be signed in the manner prescribed by the rules and a copy of it has to be sent to the Government and the conciliation officer. This should ordinarily ensure that the agreement has been arrived at without any of those defects to which we have referred above, if it is in accordance with the rules. Then S. 18 (1) provides that such a settlement would be binding between the parties and S. 19 (1) provides that it shall come into force on the date it was signed or on the date on which it says that it shall come into force. Therefore, as soon as an agreement is signed in the prescribed manner and a copy of it is sent to the Government and the conciliation officer it becomes binding at once on the parties to it and comes into operation on the date it is signed or on the date which might be mentioned in it for its coming into operation. In such a case there is no scope for any inquiry by Government as to the bona fide character of the settlement which becomes binding and comes into operation once it is signed in the manner provided in the rules and a copy is sent to the Government and the conciliation officer. The settlement having thus become binding and in many cases having already come into operation, there is no scope for any inquiry by the Government as to the bona fides of the settlement. In such a case in view of the possibility of conflict between the settlement in view of its binding nature under S. 18 (1) and an award which might become binding on publication under S. 18 (3), the proper course for the Government is to withhold the award from publication to avoid this conflict. If any dispute of the nature referred to above arises as to a settlement, that would be another industrial dispute, which the Government may refer for adjudication and if on such an adjudication the settlement is found not to be binding under S. 18 (1) of the Act it will always be open to the Government then to publish the award which it had withheld, though we do not think that such instances are likely to be anything but extremely rare. We are, therefore, of opinion that though S. 17 (1) is mandatory and the Government is bound to publish the award received by it from an industrial tribunal, the situation arising in a case like the present is of an exceptional nature and requires reconciliation between S. 18 (1) and S. 18 (3), and in such a situation the only way to reconcile the two provisions its to withhold the publication of the award, as a binding settlement has already come into force in order to avoid possible conflict between a binding settlement under S. 18 (1) and a binding award under S. 18 (3). In such a situation we are of opinion that the Government ought not to publish the award under S. 17 (1) and in cases where Government is going to publish it, it can be directed not to publish the award in view of the binding settlement arrived at between the parties under S. 18(1) with respect to the very matters which were the subject-matter of adjudication under the award.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]4. We are of opinion that the first contention on behalf of the appellants, namely, that the publication of the award under S. 17 (1) is directory cannot be accepted.It is however urged that the view we have taken may create a difficulty inasmuch as it is possible for one party or the other to represent to the Government that the settlement has been arrived at as a result of fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence or that it is not binding as the workmens representative had bartered away their interests for personal considerations. This difficulty, if it is a difficulty, will always be there even in a case where a settlement has been arrived at ordinarily between the parties and is binding under S. 18 (1), even though no dispute has been referred in that connection to a tribunal. Ordinarily however such difficulty should not arise at all, if we read Ss. 2 (p), 18 (1) and 19 (1) of the Act together. Section 2 (p) lays down what a settlement is and it includes "a written agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent to the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer." Therefore, the settlement has to be signed in the manner prescribed by the rules and a copy of it has to be sent to the Government and the conciliation officer. This should ordinarily ensure that the agreement has been arrived at without any of those defects to which we have referred above, if it is in accordance with the rules. Then S. 18 (1) provides that such a settlement would be binding between the parties and S. 19 (1) provides that it shall come into force on the date it was signed or on the date on which it says that it shall come into force. Therefore, as soon as an agreement is signed in the prescribed manner and a copy of it is sent to the Government and the conciliation officer it becomes binding at once on the parties to it and comes into operation on the date it is signed or on the date which might be mentioned in it for its coming into operation. In such a case there is no scope for any inquiry by Government as to the bona fide character of the settlement which becomes binding and comes into operation once it is signed in the manner provided in the rules and a copy is sent to the Government and the conciliation officer. The settlement having thus become binding and in many cases having already come into operation, there is no scope for any inquiry by the Government as to the bona fides of the settlement. In such a case in view of the possibility of conflict between the settlement in view of its binding nature under S. 18 (1) and an award which might become binding on publication under S. 18 (3), the proper course for the Government is to withhold the award from publication to avoid this conflict. If any dispute of the nature referred to above arises as to a settlement, that would be another industrial dispute, which the Government may refer for adjudication and if on such an adjudication the settlement is found not to be binding under S. 18 (1) of the Act it will always be open to the Government then to publish the award which it had withheld, though we do not think that such instances are likely to be anything but extremely rare. We are, therefore, of opinion that though S. 17 (1) is mandatory and the Government is bound to publish the award received by it from an industrial tribunal, the situation arising in a case like the present is of an exceptional nature and requires reconciliation between S. 18 (1) and S. 18 (3), and in such a situation the only way to reconcile the two provisions its to withhold the publication of the award, as a binding settlement has already come into force in order to avoid possible conflict between a binding settlement under S. 18 (1) and a binding award under S. 18 (3). In such a situation we are of opinion that the Government ought not to publish the award under S. 17 (1) and in cases where Government is going to publish it, it can be directed not to publish the award in view of the binding settlement arrived at between the parties under S. 18(1) with respect to the very matters which were the subject-matter of adjudication under the award.