9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act is mandatory or directory regarding the publication of an award. 2. How to reconcile the mandatory publication of an award under Section 17 with a binding settlement under Section 18(1). Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Whether Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act is mandatory or directory regarding the publication of an award. The appellants contended that Section 17, which mandates the publication of an award, should be considered directory and not mandatory. However, the court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the use of the word "shall" in Section 17(1) indicates a mandatory requirement. The court noted that the legislative intent was to enforce the publication of the award within thirty days of its receipt by the government. This is further supported by Section 17(2), which states that the award, once published, shall be final and cannot be questioned by any court. Additionally, Section 17A provides specific circumstances under which the government can declare that the award shall not become enforceable, but it still mandates the publication of the award. Therefore, the court concluded that Section 17(1) imposes a mandatory duty on the government to publish the award within the stipulated time frame. Issue 2: How to reconcile the mandatory publication of an award under Section 17 with a binding settlement under Section 18(1). The appellants alternatively argued that even if Section 17 is mandatory, the government should have the discretion to withhold the publication of the award in cases where a binding settlement under Section 18(1) has been reached. Section 18(1) provides that a settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workmen, otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceedings, shall be binding on the parties. The court acknowledged the potential conflict between a binding settlement under Section 18(1) and an award that becomes binding upon publication under Section 18(3). The court emphasized that a settlement reached between the parties is preferable to an industrial adjudication as it is likely to lead to more lasting peace. However, the court recognized the need to reconcile the mandatory publication requirement under Section 17(1) with the binding nature of settlements under Section 18(1). The court referred to the precedent set in the State of Bihar v. D. N. Ganguly, where it was held that a tribunal would make an award in terms of a settlement if informed of an amicable resolution. In the present case, the settlement was reached after the tribunal had sent its award to the government but before its publication. The court found that there is no provision in the Act dealing with such a situation. To avoid conflict between the binding settlement under Section 18(1) and the award under Section 18(3), the court concluded that the government should withhold the publication of the award. This approach does not affect the mandatory nature of Section 17(1) as it applies only in exceptional circumstances where a binding settlement has already come into force. The court also addressed potential concerns about settlements being challenged on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence. It noted that once a settlement is signed in the prescribed manner and a copy is sent to the government and the conciliation officer, it becomes binding and comes into operation. Any disputes regarding the settlement would constitute a separate industrial dispute, which the government could refer for adjudication. Conclusion: The court allowed the appeals and directed the government not to publish the awards sent by the industrial tribunal in light of the binding settlements reached under Section 18(1). This decision was made to avoid potential conflicts between the binding settlement and the award. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs. Appeals allowed.
|
