Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
PETITIONER:
EMPLOYERS OF THUNGABHADRA INDUSTRIES LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE WORKMEN AND ANOTHER
DATE OF JUDGMENT04/05/1973
BENCH:
VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.
BENCH:
VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.
GROVER, A.N.
CITATION:
1973 AIR 2272 1974 SCR (1) 172
1974 SCC (3) 167
ACT:
Industrial Disputes Act 1947,s. 9(6)--Terminiation of
award--Requirements of s. 19(6)-Termination must be fixed
with reference to a particular date.
HEADNOTE:
By an award dated, September 26, 1958 in I.D. No. 20 of 1957
the respondent workmen received certain benefits apart from
the fixing of basic wages for different categories. On
March 8, 1968 the workmen submitted a charter of demands
relating to categorization and scales of pay and dearness
allowance respectively. Later the Union passed a resolution
and intimated the management that the workmen will be on
strike from April 15, 1968. They actually were on strike
from April 15 to 20. 1968. Conciliation proceedings were
attempted but failed. The State Government passed an order
on July 25, 1968 referring the dispute for adjudication.
The dispute was dealt with by the Tribunal in I.D. No. 43 of
1968., The appellant company raised a preliminary objection
before the Tribunal that as the previous award in I.D. ’No.
20 of 1968 had not beer. terminated the present reference by
the State Government on July 25. 1968, was incompetent. The
Tribunal upheld the objection. A Single Judge of the High
Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the workmen against
the order of the Tribunal. The Division Bench however held
that the earlier award had been terminated and the second
reference was competent. in coming to this conclusion the
Division Bench took into account the following circumstances
namely, (a) that the workmen had raised demands which were
inconsistent with the earlier award. (b) that the workmen
had gone on strike and (c) that the management had
participated in the conciliation proceedings.
Allowing the appeal by the company,
HELD : Though there is no particular form in which the
notice of termination has to be given, still it is
absolutely essential that the intention to terminate the
award, with reference to a particular date, must be made
clear by the parties, who set up a case of termination.
In the instant case the charter of demands did not give any
indication that the previous award had been terminated.
Even assuming that by the charter of demands on March 8,
1968, the award was terminated, nevertheless, it *HI
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
continue to be in force for a further period of two months
from the dale under section 19(6). The fact that the
workmen went on strike from April 15, 1968, even before the
expiry of this two months period. was an indication that
they were dissatisfied with the refusal by the management to
accede to their demands. If really they had terminated the
award on March 6, 1968, it was unreasonable to hold that the
workmen would have gone on an illegal strike before the
expiry of two months from the said date. [251E]
The fact that the appellant participated in the conciliation
proceedings held by the Conciliation Officer. which was also
on a subsequent date, was also of so importance. When a
strike is on it, is obligatory on the part of the
Conciliation Officer to initiate conciliation proceedings
and the management had acted property in participating in
the conciliation proceedings. [250H]
Management of Bangalore Woollen Cotton & Silk Mills Co. Ltd.
v.The Workmen & Anr., [1968] 1 S.C.R. 551, applied.
The Workmen of Western India Match Co. Ltd. v. The Western
India Match Co. Ltd.. [1963] 2 S.C.R. 27, explained.
4-L373Sup CI/74
248
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2271 of
1970.
Appeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated
September 23, 1970 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at
Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No. 31 of 1970.
V. S. Desai, Naunit Lal and M. N. Shroff, for the
appellant.
M. K. Ramamurthi and J. Ramamurthi, for respondent No. 1
(for one section of workmen).
B. P. Singh, for respondent No. 1 (for another section of
workman).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VAIDIALINGAM, J.-This appeal on certificate is against the
judgment and order dated September 23, 1970, of the Division
Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in Writ Appeal
No. 31 of 1970.
By order dated July 25, 1968. the State, Government referred
to the Industrial Tribunal Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, for
adjudication certain disputes. The appellant raised a
preliminary objection that in respect of the items covered
by the present reference, there was a previous award in I.D.
No. 20 of 1957 passed by the Tribunal on September 26, 1958.
As the said award had not been terminated, the present
reference by the State Government on July 25, 1968, was
incompetent. The workmen, on the other hand,, contended
before the Tribunal that the previous award had been
terminated according to law and, therefore, there was no bar
to the State Government making the present reference. The
Industrial Tribunal by its award dated October 31, 1969
upheld the objection of the company and hold that the award
in I.D. No. 20 of 1957 bad not been terminated. In
consequence, the Tribunal held that the reference was
incompetent.
The workmen challenged the award in Writ Petition No. 4186
of 1969 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The learned
single Judge, who dealt with the said Writ Petition, by his
judgment and order dated December 8, 1969, dismissed the
Writ Petition and agreed with the view of the Tribunal that
the award in I.D. No. 20 of 1957 had not been terminated and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
hence the present reference by the State Government was
incompetent. On appeal by the workmen, the Division Bench
in Writ Appeal No. 31 of 1970, however, took a contrary view
and held that the, previous award had been terminated. In
this view, the learned Judges held that the present
reference was competent and directed the Industrial Tribunal
to dispose of the reference on merits.
It is this view of the Division Bench that is attacked on
behalf of the appellant by its learned counsel, Mr. V. S.
Desai. There is no controversy that there was a previous
award in I.D. No. 20 of 1967 dated September 26, 1958. This
award was published in the State Gazette on October 30,
1958. Under the said award, various benefits were given to
the staff, apart from fixing basic wages for different
categories. On March 8, 1968, the Thursday hydra Industries
Staff Union submitted a charter of demands to the management
to be im-
249
mediately complied with. The first and the second demands
related to categorization and scales of pay and dearness
allowance respectively. The union desired the management to
consider the demands and intimate the union regarding the
action taken on or before March 30, 1968. On 6th April,
1968, the union sent to the appellant a copy of the
resolution passed by its general body on April 5,_ 1968.
The resolution regretted the inaction of the management in
respect of the demands made on March 8, 1968 and also
intimated that the workmen will go on an indefinite strike
front April 15, 1968. Accordingly the workmen were on
strike from April 15, 1968 to April 30, 1968. The Assistant
Labour Commissioner, Kurnool, held conciliation proceedings
on April 30, 1968 and an agreement was arrived at. One of
the terms of the, agreement was that the general demands of
the staff union will be taken up in conciliation. The
Conciliation Officer made a report on June 24, 1968, to the
Government that conciliation was not possible. The State
Government, after receipt of this report, passed an order on
July 25, 1968, referring the dispute for adjudication. This
reference was dealt with by the Tribunal in I.D. No. 43 of
1968.
Under section 19, sub-section (3) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), an
award is operative, subject to the provisions of the said
section, for a period of one year from the date on which the
award becomes enforceable under section 17A. Sub-section
(6) of section 19 provides that, notwithstanding the expiry
of the period of operation under subsection (3), the award
shall continue to be binding on the parties until a period
of two months has elapsed from the date on which notice is
given by any party bound by the award to the other party or
parties intimating its intention to. terminate the award.
The previous award in I. D. No. 20 of 1957 member 26, 1958
and was published in the State 30, 1958. Under section 17A,
the said award on the expiry of 30 days from October 30,
1958, location under section 17. Under section 19(3) No.
20, of 1957 will remain in operation for a from the date
when it became enforceable under section 17A. But by virtue
of sub section (6) of section 19, though the said one year
period may have expired, the award will continue to be in
force and binding on the parties till a notice terminating
the award is given by any of the parties. Even then the
award will continue to be in force. for a period of two
months from the date of the notice.
In the, case before us, when the charter of demands was pre-
sented to the management by the union on March 8, 1968,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
admittedly the latter had not given any notice, as
contemplated under section 19(6) of the Act. It is also not
in dispute that the said charter of demands referred to all
the matters covered by the previous award in 1. D, No. 20 of
1957.
Under these circumstances, the question arises whether the
present reference dated July 25, 1968, is competent. Mr. V.
S. Desai,
25 0
learned counsel for the appellant referred us to the
decision of this Court in Management of Bangalore Woollen,
Cotton & Silk Mills CO. Ltd. v. The Workmen & Anr. (1) and
urged that the view of the Division Bench of the High Court
upholding the competency of the present reference is not
correct.
The above contention of Mr. V. S. Desai was met by Mr.
Ramamurthi, learned counsel for some of the workmen, by
placing reliance on the circumstances noted by the learned
Judges of the Division Bench as pointing to the termination
of the previous award.
The Division Bench has proceeded on the basis that the
subject matter of the dispute in the present reference is
almost identical with the matters covered by the award made
in I.D). No. 20 of 1957. The Division Bench has also held
that no notice. terminating the previous award, as required
by section 19(6) of the Act, was given when the charter of
demands was submitted to the management on March 8, 1968.
But the learned Judges of the Division Bench have relied
upon three circumstances as indicating that the union had
terminated the previous award. Those circumstances are
(1) The making of a charter of demands on
March 8, 1968, inconsistent with the
directions contained in I.D. No. 20 of 1957.
(2) the workmen going on strike from April
15, 1968 to April 30, 1968 when the management
did not accede to the demands; and
(3) when the management participated in the
conciliation proceedings initiated by the
concerned officer on April 30. 1968.
These circumstances, according to the learned Judges,
clearly lead to the conclusion that the workmen had
indicated their intention not to abide by the previous award
in I.D. No. 20 of 1957.
The approach made by the learned Judges of the Division
Bench is erroneous. The judgment of this Court in
Management of Bangalore Woollen, Cotton & Silk Mills Co.
Ltd.(1) case, though referred to, has not been properly
appreciated. The Division Bench missed the important
circumstance that the union must establish the point of time
when the previous award has been terminated. Therefore, the
question that should have been tackled was whether on March
8, 1968, when the charter of demands was submitted, there
has be-en a proper termination of the previous award, as
required under section 19(6). The fact that the workmen
went on a strike subsequently may indicate that they are
dissatisfied with the refusal of the management to accede to
their demands. But that will not satisfy the requirement
under section 19(6). The fact that the appellant partici-
pated in the conciliation proceedings held by the
Conciliation Officer, which is also on subsequent date, is
also of no importance. When a strike ’is on, it is
obligatory on the part of the Conciliation Officer to
initiate conciliation proceedings and the management had
acted pro-
(1) [1968] 1 S. C.R. 581.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
251
perly in participating in the conciliation proceedings. But
it is to be noted that in the report dated June 24. 1968,
the Conciliation Officer had clearly stated that with regard
to the demand for categorisation and scales of pay, the
management were not inclined to consider the same, as they
had been fixed by the award in I.D. No. 20 of 1957 and that
the said award had not been terminated so far. Therefore,
the stand of the appellant as on April 20, 1968, the date.
when the conciliation proceedings were held, was that the
previous award had riot been terminated by the union.
Mr. Ramamurthi, learned counsel for some of the workmen,
pointed out that the serving of a charter of demands
clearly shows that the union had terminated the award. In
our opinion, this contention cannot be accepted, because it
does not satisfy the requirement of section 19(6). This
Court has held in Management of Bangalore Woollen, Cotton &
Silk Mills Co. Ltd. (1) case that regarding the termination
of an award, it must be fixed with reference to a particular
date so as to enable a court to come to the conclusion that
the party giving that intimation has expressed its intention
to terminate the award. Such certainty regarding the date
is quite essential because the period of two )months, after
the expiry of which the award ceases to be binding on the
parties, will have to be reckoned from the date of such
clear intimation regarding the termination of the award.
Though there is no particular form in which the notice of
termination has to be given, still it is absolutely
essential that the intention to terminate the award, with
reference to a particular date, must he made clear by the
parties, who set up a case, on termination. In the instant
case, after going through the charter of demands, we are
satisfied that it does not give any indication that the
previous award has been terminated. Even assuming that by
the charter of demands on March 8, 1968, the award was
terminated, nevertheless, it will continue to be in force,
for a further period of two months from that date under
section 19(6). The fact that the workmen went on strike
from April 15, 1968, even before the expiry of this two
months period, is an indication that they were dissatisfied
with the refusal by the management to accede to their
demands. If really they had terminated the award on March
8, 1968, it is unreasonable to hold that the workmen would
have gone on an illegal strike before the expiry of two
months from the said date.
The decision in The Workmen of Western India Match Co. Ltd.
v. The Western India Match Co. Ltd., (2) which has been
relied on by the Division Bench and also by Mr. Ramamurthi
before us, has been explained by this Court in Management of
Bangalore Woollen, Cotton & Silk Mills Co. Ltd.() case. The
distinctive features and the particular circumstances under
which the said decision was given, have not been properly
appreciated by the Division Bench. Mr. Ramamurthi urged
that in the Workmen of Western India Match Co. Ltd.(2) case,
this Court has accepted the position that the charter
(1) [1968] 1 S.C. R. 581.
(2) [1968] 2 S. C. R. 27.
252
of demands and various representations made by the workmen,
which were inconsistent with an award already in force, will
lead to the inference of an intention by the workmen to
terminate the previous award. We are not inclined to accept
this contention of the learned counsel. The said decision
of this Court did not accept the position that the mere
making of demands, without any thing more, will amount to a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6
termination of a previous award. On the other hand,
ignoring the charter of demands as well as the various
representations mad-, by the union, this Court in the said
decision held that the letter dated April 8, 1957, written
by the union, had the effect of giving notice to the
management about termination of the settlement. It was
after fixing this date as the date of termination of the
settlement, this Court further held that the reference made
by the State Government long after the expiry of two months
from the said date, was competent. In fact the said
decision is against the view taken by the Division Bench of
the High Court in the case before us an the view which was
sought to be supported by Mr. Ramamurthi.
We are not inclined to agree with the view of the Division
Bench that there has been a termination of the award in I.D.
No. 20 of 1957. If so, the Industrial Tribunal as well as
the learned single ’Judge were right in holding that the
present reference dated July 25,,1968, is incompetent.
In the result, the judgment and order of the High Court in
Writ Appeal No. 31 of 1970 are set aside and. the appeal. is
allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
G.C.
Appeal allowed.
2 5 3