Case: Workmen of M/s. Sur Enamel &amp; Stamping Works Private Limited &amp; Another Vs. State of West Bengal &amp; Others

2. The dispute which is the subject matter of these appeals arose between M/s. Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P) Ltd., on the one hand, and the Sur Enamel Sramick Union, representing the workers, on the other. The former will be described hereafter as the Company and the latter as the Sramick Union. It appears that some of the workers in the Company were also members of two other workers Unions which operated in the Companys factory, and they are known as the Workers Union and the Employees Association. Some workers appear to have been members of two or more Unions at the same time3. On February 29, 1960 the Sramick Union served a Charter of Demands upon the Company and also communicated the same to the Labour Commissioner. On May 2, 1960 the conciliation Officer took up the dispute. On August 2, 1960 the first meeting in the conciliation proceedings was held with the Sramick Union and the proceedings continued for a number of months. The proceedings failed ultimately on April 12, 1961. On April 17, 1961 the Conciliation Officer, Mr. S. Bhattacharya made a report under Section 12 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act reporting the failure of the conciliation proceedings. On June 6, 1961 the State of West Bengal made a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act of an Industrial Dispute existing between the said Company and its workmen represented by the Sramick Union. The issues that were referred were as follows:(1) Revision of pay and dearness allowance(2) Fixation ofs and scales4. The first Industrial Tribunal to which the reference was made undertook the enquiry in due course. Pleadings were filed and on September 7, 1963 the Company presented applications before the Tribunal for framing preliminary issues, on jurisdiction. It alleged that the Company had entered into two settlements in conciliation proceedings with the other two Unions already referredtoone on May 3, 1961 and the other on1 and in view of these settlements the first three items of reference went out of the scope of the enquiry. The first settlement dated May 3, 1961 covered the first two items under reference namely(1) Revision of pay and dearness allowanceand(2) Fixation of, while the second settlement dated1 covered the third item namely Profit bonus for. The Sramick Union contended that it was not a partytothe settlementsandtherefore, they were not binding on itandsince the State Government had already made a reference the Tribunal oughttoproceed with the adjudication. This contention was accepted by the Tribunal by its Order dated September 26, 19635. From that Order the Company wenttothe High Court in its writ jurisdiction with a prayer for a writ in the nature of. The Company contended that in view ofthe settlementsreferredtoabove in conciliation proceedings the same became binding on all workmen employed in the Establishment under Section 18 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Actandit was no longer open for the Tribunaltoadjudicate on issues covered by the two settlements. That contention was upheld by the learned single Judge who relying on the decision of this Court in the Bata Shoe Private Ltd. v. D. N. Ganguli, (1961) SCR 308 = (AIR 1961 SC 1158  ) held that the two settlementsreferredtoare binding on all the workmen of the Company under Section 18 of the Act. From that Order the Sramick Union went in appealtothe Bench6. During the course of hearing of the appeal the High Court found that neither the Tribunal nor the learned single Judge had enquired in depth astowhether in factthe settlementsor agreements had been enteredin the course of conciliation proceedings. So it called for the record of the proceedings in ordertosatisfy itself astowhether the two settlements were in fact enteredin the course of conciliation proceedings. The parties were heard thereafter. The Court found that so far as the first settlement dated May 3, 1961 is concerned it had been arrived at in the course of the conciliation proceedings. But it was not abletosay the same with regardtothe second agreement datedr 5, 1961. It agreed with the view of the learned single Judge that as the first settlement was during the course of conciliation proceedings it was binding on all workers. That could not be said with regardtothe second. Accordingly it quashed that part of the finding of the Tribunal which had held that the first agreement dated May 3, 1961 was not binding on all the workmenandtransmitted the case backtothe Tribunal for the completion of the proceedings on matters not covered by the settlement dated May 3, 19617. From that Order both parties have come in appealtothis Court by certificate. The Sramick Unions appeal is Civil Appeal No. 1639/67andthe complaint in that appeal is that the High Court was in error in holding that the first settlement dated May 3, 1961 was binding on all workers. The second appeal being Civil Appeal No. 1640/67 is filed by the Companyandin that appeal the finding of the High Court that the second settlement dated, 5, 1961 was not showntohave been enteredin the course of conciliation proceedings is challenged.

Reasoning:
Civil Appeal No. 1639 of 678. This appeal does not fall for consideration now. It appears that a reference had been made by the State Government for the fixation of wagesanddearness allowanceandcertain other matters in a dispute between several managements of smallandmedium industriesandtheir workmen. The Companyandits workmen were also partiestothat reference. The reference was made in 1962andthe final award was made in 1966. Appeals were filedtothis Court being Civil Appeals Nos. 603, 789, 791and792 of 1967. These appeals were disposed of by a common judgment of this Court on January 18, 1972. (See: Federation of SmallandMedium Industries v. The WorkmenCivil Appeals Nos. 603, 789, 791and792and1967, D/2 (SC) decided by Validilingam, DuaandMitter, JJ.) In these appeals the question of wagesanddearness allowancewas finally disposed of,andMr. Pai on behalf of the Company stated that in view of the above decision the two points in the reference viz.(1) Revision of payanddearness allowanceand(2) Fixation ofMr. Khera on behalf of the Sramick Union conceded that, in that case, it was unnecessarytodecide this appeal hereCivil Appeal No 1640 of 19679. Mr. Pai on behalf of the appellant Company contended that the High Court was in error in holding that the settlement datedr 5, 1961 was not arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings.It must be noted that there was before the High Court an affidavit on behalf of the Sramick Union made by Sunil Krishna Gupta, General Secretary of the Sramick Union of6 in which he definitely alleged that Mrs. Parul Chakraborty who as Conciliation Officer is supposedtohave attested the alleged settlement ofwhose affidavit dated June 14, 1966 was on record was not the Conciliation Officer in respect of the disputeandthat there were really no conciliation proceedings relatingtothe so calledm of settlement datedr 5, 1961 between the Companyandthe other Unionsreferredtotherein. In view of this categorical allegation the High Court gave an opportunitytothe parties including the State Governmenttoprocedure all the records in their possession with a viewtodetermine whether these allegations were correct. No original record was produced though it appears that the State Government had tried its besttotract the record. The High Court observed "no minutes of any such conciliation proceedings resulting in the alleged agreement is traceable. The original agreement itself cannot be traced but a copy has been produced by the Labour Department which is saidtobe signed by all the parties. It, however, does not say that there were, in fact, any conciliation proceedings. Referringtothe affidavit filed by Mrs. Parul Chakraborty on6 in which she had stated that the settlement was arrived at in her presence in the course of the conciliation proceedings the High Court made pointed referencetothe verification clause of that affidavit which is as follows:"The statements contained in all the paragraphs above are based on information derived from the records maintained in the Laboure of the Government of West Bengalandare believedtobe true.Now, If Mrs. Parul Chakraborty was abletosee the records before making the affidavit on June 14, 1966 there should have been no difficulty in producing those records for the inspection of the Court. But the High Court says no such record was produced. On the other, the attention of the Court was invitedtoan endorsement made by Mrs. Chakraborty in the files on6 which stated that the agreement dated1 was arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedingsandsigned by her as Conciliation Officer but that she did not remember whether a report under section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act was sent uptothe Government as this was a matter relatingto. It is clear that Mrs. Chakrbaborty did not really remember whether the settlement was arrived at during conciliation proceedings. The proceedings had taken place induring the pendency of the appeal in the High Court she must have been asked on the basis of the copy of the settlement which was produced in court asto