1999 (12) TMI 887 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Jurisdiction of the State Government to make a reference under Section 10(1)(d) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. Validity of the tripartite settlement and its binding nature.
3. Status of the Workers' Union as a representative union.
4. Non-application of mind by the State Government in making the reference.
5. Whether the demands of the Workers' Union were covered by the tripartite settlement.
6. Procedural lapses by the State Government in issuing the notification.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the State Government to Make a Reference:
The appellant argued that there was no dispute pending at the time of the reference as the Workers' Union members had already benefited from the tripartite settlement. Therefore, the State Government lacked jurisdiction to make the reference. The Supreme Court emphasized that the existence of an industrial dispute is a prerequisite for the State Government to invoke its power under Section 10(1) of the Act. The Court held that the State Government failed to consider relevant factors before making the reference, thus lacking the jurisdiction to do so.

2. Validity of the Tripartite Settlement:
The appellant contended that the tripartite settlement dated October 4, 1986, was binding on all employees, including the Workers' Union members, under Section 18(3) of the Act. The Workers' Union challenged the validity of the settlement, claiming it was made on a Sunday and did not cover all their demands. The Supreme Court held that the settlement was valid and binding, as it was arrived at during conciliation proceedings, and there was no bar to conducting such proceedings on a holiday.

3. Status of the Workers' Union as a Representative Union:
The appellant argued that the Workers' Union was not a representative union under Section 9-E of the Rajasthan Act 34 of 1958, as amended by the Rajasthan Act 14 of 1970. The Court noted that the Labour Union, which had the majority of workers, was the recognized representative union. The Workers' Union's notice under Section 19(2) of the Act was invalid as it did not represent the majority of persons bound by the settlement.

4. Non-application of Mind by the State Government:
The appellant claimed that the State Government did not consider whether the Workers' Union represented the majority of workers and whether their demands were already covered by the tripartite settlement. The Supreme Court found that the State Government failed to apply its mind and consider relevant factors before making the reference, leading to a lack of jurisdiction.

5. Whether the Demands of the Workers' Union Were Covered by the Tripartite Settlement:
The Workers' Union argued that not all their demands were covered by the tripartite settlement. The Supreme Court held that settlements arrived at during conciliation proceedings encompass all existing disputes except those specifically left out. The Workers' Union's demands were either the same, similar, or identical to those raised by the Labour Union, which were covered by the settlement.

6. Procedural Lapses by the State Government:
The appellant highlighted that the State Government issued the notification for reference without considering the High Court's direction to hear the appellant. The Supreme Court found that the State Government failed to bring the notification to the High Court's notice and did not recall the reference after the High Court's judgment. This procedural lapse rendered the reference invalid.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and quashing the State Government's notification dated March 17, 1989. The Court emphasized that the tripartite settlement was binding on all employees, including the Workers' Union members, and the State Government lacked jurisdiction to make the reference. The Court also highlighted the importance of collective bargaining and the principle of industrial democracy in maintaining industrial peace.