Case: Poona Mazoor Sabha Vs. G.K. Dhutia &amp; Another

It appears that there was a dispute between the second opponent company and its workers with regard to wages, dearness allowance, leave facilities etc. and ona meeting of the workers was called where one Mahadik was authorised by histo make representations to the second opponent company with regard to their demands.The second opponent company wanted to negotiate with the worker who had a representative capacity and therefore the Government Labour Officer was approached to hold a meeting at which representatives of the workers would be elected under his supervision. Accordingly a meeting was held onat which five workmen were elected by the workers present to be their representatives.Onthe second opponent company and the elected representatives of the workers wrote e letter to the conciliation officer to the effect that they had come to a negotiated agreement in regard to the demand relating to wages, dearness allowance and leave facilities and that they desired to sign a memorandum of settlement before him. Accordingly onboth the parties appeared before the conciliation officer, the first opponent, and produced before him a draft agreement. This draft agreement was considered by the conciliation officer and he explained to the elected representatives of the workers in Marathi the various terms of the agreement, the agreement having been drafted in English. There was considerable discussion over each clause of the agreement and one of the terms was modified by the conciliation officer and the parties appearing before him approved of this modification.The whole discussion lasted about an hour. The conciliation officer then adjourned the proceedings, advising the elected representatives to consult the other workers and their advisers before coming to a final decision in the matter. The elected representatives then saw the first opponent to the afternoon and approved of the draft agreement as was modified. Thereupon a memo settlement was prepared in the prescribed form and was signed by the parties.Onthe petitioner Union was formed and it was registered on955 the Union made certain demands upon the second, opponent company, which demands were the subject matter of the settlement already arrived at. As the employer company, the second opponent, was not prepared to concede these demands, the petitioner approached the first opponent to initiate conciliation proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act.The first opponent refused to do so on the ground that there was a subsisting settlement arrived at between the parties and so long as that settlement continued he had no jurisdiction to initiate conciliation proceedings under the Act. It may be pointed out that the duration of the settlement as mentioned in the settlement itself was five years. The view taken by the first opponent was that the settlement was binding upon the parties for the period mentioned in the settlement and .so long as the settlement was binding it was not open to him to initiate conciliation proceedings under the Act.The petitioner has come before us on this petition for a writ of mandamus against the first opponent to compel him to perform his statutory duty and to initiate conciliation proceedings under S. 12.

Reasoning: We will assume for the sake of this argument that there was an agreement arrived at between the parties antecedent toand on this assumption we have to ask ourselves the question whether that would exclude the jurisdiction of the conciliation officer to record the settlement arrivedthe eye of the industrial law, in our opinion, an industrial dispute does not end until a settlement is arrived at which settlement has been given a binding effect under the provisions of S. 19(2), and such a settlement can only be arrived at when conciliation proceedings are held under S. 12.Therefore, it would not be true to say that the industrial dispute ended with the settlement arrived at between the parties onthat the conciliation officer had no jurisdiction to record the settlement, and that in raising another dispute in June 1955, the Union was raising a dispute which was not and could not be the subject matter of a settlement contemplated by S. 12 and S.the absence of any such specific provision, with regard to a settlement, it is clear in our opinion that neither any industrial dispute can be raised with regard to the settlement nor can matters covered by that settlement form the subject matter of conciliation proceedings under S. 12.In taking the view that we are, we are not deciding anything which is prejudicial to the rights of labour. If we were to accept the contention put forward by Mr. Bhandare, it would become extremely difficult for employer and employees to arrive at any settlement without first going to a conciliation officer.If the law was that a private settlement of an industrial dispute could not be arrived at which could be recorded by the conciliation officer and which could be made binding, then it would be very difficult to induce parties to arrive at any such settlement, because the whole of Mr. Bhandares argument revolves round this that it was open to the workers of the second opponent company the next day after they had arrived at this agreement, to resile from that agreement.Industrial peace demands that sanctity should be attached to agreements freely arrived at by the parties and if the view went abroad that private settlements have no sanctity whatsoever, then there would be little chance of disputes ending by settlement between the parties. It will indeed be extremely unfortunate from the point of view ofis only when the dispute relates to a public utility service and a notice under S. 22 has been given that there is a statutory duty cast upon him to hold conciliation proceedings.Although the conciliation officer has a discretion, it is obvious that that discretion cannot be arbitrarily or capriciously exercised, and if we had agreed with the contention put forward by Mr. Bhandare then we would certainly have required the conciliation officer to consider the question on merits and exercise his discretion as required by the statute. But inasmuch we have taken the view that conciliation proceedings cannot be initiated when there is a settlement in force, the question of the exercise of the discretion of the conciliation officer does not arise.