Conciliation settlement binding effect did not bar industrial dispute reference where fairness and continued enforceability were in issue.

A conciliation settlement ordinarily binds the parties and covered workmen, and it is a relevant factor in assessing whether an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. Here, the Court found the settlement was not conclusive because it left a large section of workmen on indefinite lay-off with only partial compensation, raising issues as to fairness, validity and continued enforceability after time had passed. Those matters, including whether a genuine industrial dispute still subsisted, were held fit for Industrial Tribunal adjudication. Interference under Article 226 was also unwarranted because the State Government's satisfaction for making the reference had a basis. The reference was therefore not quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State Government's suo motu reference to the Industrial Tribunal, relating to the legality and validity of the lay-off and its consequences, was liable to be interfered with in view of the settlement dated 13.4.2007 and the plea that no industrial dispute survived.

Analysis: A settlement arrived at during conciliation proceedings ordinarily has binding force on the parties and on the workmen covered by the statutory scheme, and the existence of a settlement is a relevant factor while examining whether an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. However, the Court found that the settlement in question was not conclusive in its operation, left a large section of workmen on indefinite lay-off with only partial compensation, and raised serious questions about its fairness, validity and continued enforceability after the lapse of time. In these circumstances, the issue whether the settlement was fair, reasonable and binding on all workmen, and whether a genuine industrial dispute still subsisted, was one for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal. The Court also held that interference under Article 226 with a governmental reference is not warranted where the satisfaction of the State Government cannot be said to be without basis.

Conclusion: The reference was not liable to be quashed, and the challenge to the learned Single Judge's order failed.

---