2005 (3) TMI 754 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms High Court decision on Industrial Tribunal award jurisdiction, settlement binding.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal and affirming the validity and binding nature of the Industrial Tribunal's ... Whether the Award dated June 12, 1987 had effectively terminated the industrial dispute referred to the Tribunal by the appropriate Government on December 13, 1982? Whether the action of the Management in refusing duties to a large number of workers is illegal and/or unjustified, and if so, what directions are necessary in this regard? Whether the Management is justified in closing down a large number of looms in the mill and if not to what relief the affected workers are entitled and what further directions are necessary in this respect? Issues Involved:1. Legality and binding nature of the settlement dated May 17, 1983.2. Jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to recall its earlier Award dated June 12, 1987.3. Whether the Industrial Tribunal was functus officio after the Award was published.4. Fairness and justness of the settlement dated May 17, 1983.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality and Binding Nature of the Settlement Dated May 17, 1983:The core dispute arose from the closure of looms in the Weaving Section of the Mill, leading to a settlement between the respondent-Management and some workers' unions. The appellant-Union contended that the settlement was not binding on all workmen as it was signed by only two unions representing a minor portion of the workforce and was not reached during conciliation proceedings. The Tribunal, however, found that the settlement was indeed reached during conciliation proceedings, involving the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Conciliation Officer, and was binding on all workers. The Tribunal concluded that the settlement was fair and just, addressing all relevant issues of relief and rehabilitation of the affected workers.2. Jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to Recall its Earlier Award Dated June 12, 1987:The Tribunal initially passed an Award on June 12, 1987, based on the settlement. However, the appellant-Union later filed an application to recall this Award, arguing that the fairness of the settlement was not considered. The Tribunal's successor allowed the recall, framing an additional issue on the settlement's fairness. The High Court quashed this order, holding that the Tribunal lacked the power to review its earlier Award in the absence of an express provision in the Industrial Disputes Act. The Supreme Court upheld this view, distinguishing between procedural review and review on merits, stating that the latter requires express statutory provision.3. Whether the Industrial Tribunal was Functus Officio After the Award was Published:The High Court ruled that the Tribunal was not functus officio when the recall application was filed on September 7, 1987, as the Award had not yet become enforceable (which would have been on September 9, 1987). This view was supported by precedents like Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, which held that the Tribunal retains jurisdiction over the dispute until the Award becomes enforceable.4. Fairness and Justness of the Settlement Dated May 17, 1983:The appellant-Union argued that the Tribunal did not consider whether the settlement was fair and just. However, the Supreme Court found that the Tribunal had indeed examined the settlement's fairness in its detailed Award dated June 12, 1987, and concluded that it was fair and just. The High Court's finding that the Tribunal had recorded its satisfaction about the settlement's fairness was upheld.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment that the Tribunal's earlier Award dated June 12, 1987, was valid and binding, and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to recall it. The settlement dated May 17, 1983, was found to be fair, just, and binding on all workmen, having been reached during conciliation proceedings with the assistance and concurrence of the Conciliation Officer.