Mandatory publication of industrial tribunal awards gives way when a binding settlement arises before publication.

Section 17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act was construed as imposing a mandatory duty on the Government to publish a tribunal award, because the statutory scheme in sections 17(1), 17(2) and 17A showed that publication was intended to be obligatory and was the trigger for finality and enforceability. However, where a binding settlement under section 18(1) had come into force after the award was sent to the Government but before publication, the settlement had to be given effect to avoid a conflict between two binding instruments, and publication of the award could properly be withheld as infructuous in that special situation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 required the Government to publish the tribunal award as a mandatory duty. (ii) Whether the Government could withhold publication of the award when a binding settlement under section 18(1) had been arrived at after the award had been sent to Government but before publication.

Issue (i): Whether section 17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 required the Government to publish the tribunal award as a mandatory duty.

Analysis: The provision used the word "shall" and, read with section 17(2), which gives finality to the published award, and section 17A, which deals with the consequences of publication and enforceability, the legislative scheme showed that publication of the award within the prescribed time was intended to be obligatory. The power of Government in relation to an award was confined to the situations specifically dealt with in section 17A.

Conclusion: Section 17(1) imposed a mandatory duty on the Government to publish the award.

Issue (ii): Whether the Government could withhold publication of the award when a binding settlement under section 18(1) had been arrived at after the award had been sent to Government but before publication.

Analysis: The statutory scheme also gave binding force to settlements arrived at otherwise than in conciliation proceedings under section 18(1), while section 18(3) gave binding effect to awards after publication. Since the settlement in the case had been signed and had become operative before publication, publication of the award would create a direct conflict between two binding instruments. The provisions had to be reconciled so that the settlement was given effect and the award, having become unnecessary to resolve any live dispute, could be treated as infructuous for that purpose. In such an exceptional situation, the proper course was to withhold publication to avoid the statutory conflict.

Conclusion: The Government could and ought to withhold publication of the award where a binding settlement under section 18(1) had already come into force before publication.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, and the Government was directed not to publish the awards because the binding settlements between the parties had already resolved the disputes and took precedence in the special circumstances of the case.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a settlement binding under section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 comes into force after an award has been sent to Government but before publication, the Government must reconcile the statutory scheme by withholding publication of the award to avoid conflict between the binding settlement and the binding effect of the published award.

---