TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1977 (10) TMI 127
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce for a period of three years, that is, till 5th July, 1973. The workmen through their union (Shukla Manseta Mazdoor Sangh) gave notice to the employer on May 6, 1973, terminating the settlement after the expiry of the period of two months from the date of the notice. Thus under the terms of the notice the settlement would also have stood terminated at the instance of the workmen on July 5, 1973, which was also the date of the expiry of the settlement under the agreed terms. 3. The workmen thereafter raised certain demands on August 1, 1973 and the State Government, in due course, referred the dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the Act to the Industrial Tribunal by an order dated June 25, 1974. 4. The employer took a preliminary objection before the Tribunal that the reference was incompetent and invalid in view of the fact that there was no legal and valid termination of the settlement in accordance with the provisions of Section 19(2) of the Act. The workmen resisted the claim. The Tribunal over-ruled the preliminary objection and held that the notice was valid and the reference was competent. It is against the above order of the Tribunal that the employer has come to this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder Section 2(p) of the Act: "2. (p) 'Settlement' means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer". 7. There is no dispute that the settlement in question comes within the purview of Section 2(p) of the Act. 8. Under the provisions of Section 19(2) it is clear that a settlement shall be binding for such period as is agreed upon by the parties and if there is no period mentioned in the agreement, for a period of six months from the date on which the settlement is signed by the parties. With regard to the period of operation of the settlement, Section 19(2) confers a statutory continuity of the settlement even after the expiry of the period agreed upon until the expiry of two months from the date on which a written notice of the intention to terminate the settlement is given by one p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent. If the period is fixed it commences from the date as specified in the settlement and will theoretically end as agreed upon but shall continue to operate under the law until the expiry of the requisite period of two months by a clear written notice. 12. An award under Section 19(3) of the Act has a longer period of operation, to start with, namely, one year from the date of the commencement of the award, which is on the expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of the award by the appropriate Government. As in the case of a settlement so also under Section 19(6) the award continues to operate governing the condition's of service until the expiry of two months from the date of receipt of notice of termination of the award. Under the two provisos to Sub-section (3) of Section 19 Government has the option to reduce or extend the period of operation of an award. This will be, however, always subject to Sub-section (5) of Section 19. 13. Notice under Section 19(2) or under Section 19(6) is only for intimation of an intention to terminate a settlement or an award respectively. There is no legal impediment to give advance intimation of the aforesaid intention provided t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Shroff sought to derive some assistance. We find that although the agreement, there, was statutorily continuing after its expiry on August 26, 1952, notice for terminating the agreement was given on September 6, 1952 and the High Court rightly accepted the notice as valid. The High Court also rightly disagreed with the views of the Labour Appellate Tribunal in India Reconstruction Corporation Limited (1953) Labour Appeal Cases 563 (Cal.) that an agreement with a fixed period expired by efflux of the period and was not statutorily continued. "The period aforesaid" in Section 19(2) will include not only the contractual period but also the statutory period of six months. This decision, therefore, lends no assistance to Mr. Shroff. 18. Mr. Shroff also relied upon a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Deccan Tile Works v. Their Workmen (Tile Factories Workers' Union, Samalkot) and two others (1960)IILLJ298AP which does not at all lend assistance to his submission. Although the facts are not very clear from the report we find, the High Court has observed that- "obviously the management was not within its rights in terminating and unilaterally repudiating Ex. A.....