1977 (10) TMI 127 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 19(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. Validity of notice of termination given before the expiry of the settlement period.
3. Competency of the reference made by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal.
4. Applicability of previous judgments and decisions to the current case.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Section 19(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
The core issue revolves around whether Section 19(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act mandates that a notice of termination can only be given after the expiry of the settlement period. The judgment clarifies that Section 19(2) ensures that a settlement remains binding for the agreed period and continues to operate until two months after a written notice of termination is given by one party to the other. The provision aims to maintain peace and accord between the parties during the settlement period and allows for its extension by operation of law unless terminated with proper notice.

2. Validity of notice of termination given before the expiry of the settlement period:
The workmen issued a notice on May 6, 1973, to terminate the settlement effective from July 5, 1973, coinciding with the end of the agreed settlement period. The judgment states that there is no legal impediment to giving advance notice of termination as long as it does not curtail the contractual or statutory period of the settlement. The notice in question was deemed valid as it complied with the requirement that the period of two months from the date of notice must end on or after the expiry of the settlement.

3. Competency of the reference made by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal:
The employer challenged the reference made by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal, arguing that it was incompetent due to the alleged invalidity of the termination notice. The Tribunal overruled this objection, and the Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the notice was valid and the reference was competent. The judgment emphasizes that settlements, if not duly terminated, continue to operate as binding conditions of service, and the reference was valid as the termination notice met the legal requirements.

4. Applicability of previous judgments and decisions to the current case:
The judgment examines several previous decisions cited by the appellant, including cases from the Supreme Court and High Courts. However, it finds that none of these cases directly address the specific issue at hand. For instance, the case of Management of Bangalore Woolen, Cotton & Silk Mills Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen dealt with an award that had not been terminated, making the reference incompetent. The current case differs as the settlement was terminated with a valid notice. Similarly, the decisions in Indian Link Chain Manufactures Ltd. v. Their Workmen and the National Carbon Co. (India) Ltd. v. M. N. Gan did not provide relevant support to the appellant's arguments. The judgment concludes that advance notice of termination is permissible under Section 19(2), provided it does not infringe upon the agreed or statutory period of the settlement.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the notice given by the workmen was valid and the reference by the State Government was competent. The judgment underscores that Section 19(2) allows for advance notice of termination, ensuring continuity and stability in industrial relations while providing a mechanism for timely renegotiation of settlements. The Tribunal is directed to expedite the disposal of the case.