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

1. These three appeals on certificates raise the same question and will be dealt with together. It will be enough to refer to the facts of one appeal only, i. e. No. 220, to understand the point arising for decision, the facts in the other appeals being similar.2. Briefly the facts in appeal No. 220 are that an order referring certain disputes between the appellant and its workmen was made to the Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh on June 6, 1956. The tribunal sent its award to Government in September 1957. Under S. 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, No. XIV of 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the award has to be published by the appropriate government within a period of thirty days from the date of its receipt by the government in such manner as the government thinks fit. Before however the Government could publish the award under S. 17, the parties to the dispute which had been referred for adjudication came to a settlement and on October 1, 1957, a letter was written to Government signed jointly on behalf of the employer and the employees intimating that the dispute which had been pending before the tribunal had been settled and a request was made to Government not to publish the award. The Government however expressed its inability to withhold the publication of the award, the view taken by the Government being that S. 17 of the Act was mandatory and the Government was bound to publish the award. Thereupon the appellants filed writ petitions before the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying that the Government may be directed not to publish the award sent to it by the industrial tribunal. The High Court held that S. 17 was mandatory and it was not open to Government to withhold publication of an award sent to it by an industrial tribunal. Therefore it was not open to the High Court to direct the Government not to publish the award when the law enjoined upon it to publish it. The writ petitions were therefore dismissed. There were then applications for certificates which were granted and that is how the matter has come up before us.

Reasoning:
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.