Industrial tribunal recall limits and conciliation settlement binding effect on all workmen and the reference

An industrial tribunal retains jurisdiction over a reference until an award becomes enforceable, which occurs only after 30 days from publication; a recall application filed before that stage is maintainable. However, the tribunal has no inherent power to review its award on merits unless such power is conferred expressly or by necessary implication, so a merits-based recall is impermissible. A settlement reached during conciliation with the assistance and concurrence of the Conciliation Officer is binding on all parties, including workmen, and if it covers the referred disputes it exhausts the reference and leaves no surviving controversy for adjudication.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Industrial Tribunal had become functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application to recall the award before it became enforceable; (ii) whether the Tribunal could recall its earlier award by way of review on merits in the absence of express or implied statutory power; (iii) whether the settlement arrived at during the conciliation process was a valid, fair and binding settlement that disposed of the reference.

Issue (i): Whether the Industrial Tribunal had become functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application to recall the award before it became enforceable.

Analysis: An award under the Industrial Disputes Act becomes enforceable only on the expiry of thirty days from publication. The application for recall was moved before that date. Proceedings before the Tribunal are deemed to continue until the award becomes enforceable, so the Tribunal retains jurisdiction over the reference and can entertain an application connected with it.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had not become functus officio and the application for recall was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal could recall its earlier award by way of review on merits in the absence of express or implied statutory power.

Analysis: A distinction exists between procedural review and review on merits. Procedural review may be exercised to cure a jurisdictional or procedural defect that vitiates the proceeding, such as absence of notice or a hearing held on an incorrect date. A review on merits, however, is not an inherent power and can be exercised only when the statute confers such power expressly or by necessary implication. The recall sought here was based not on a procedural illegality but on the alleged failure to consider certain matters on merits.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to recall the award by way of review on merits.

Issue (iii): Whether the settlement arrived at during the conciliation process was a valid, fair and binding settlement that disposed of the reference.

Analysis: The record showed continuing labour unrest, a strike notice, a closure notice, repeated meetings with labour , and the participation of the Conciliation Officer in the settlement process. A settlement reached in the course of conciliation with the assistance and concurrence of the Conciliation Officer is binding on all parties under the Act. The settlement also covered the disputes referred for adjudication and had already been found to be fair and just in the award.

Conclusion: The settlement was a valid conciliation settlement, fair and binding on all workmen, and it exhausted the reference.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal could not reopen the award on merits, and the settlement validly resolved the industrial dispute, leaving no surviving controversy for further adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: A labour tribunal may recall an award only to cure a procedural defect that vitiates the proceeding itself, not to conduct a review on merits absent statutory authority; and a settlement reached with the assistance and concurrence of the Conciliation Officer during conciliation is binding on all concerned and can dispose of the reference.

---