Mr.N.R.Shahani, L.A. for the petitioners Mr.V.B.Patel, Ld.Sr.Counsel with Mr.D.G.Chauhan, L.A. for the respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------
Coram: N.J.Pandya & S.D.Pandit,JJ.
September ____1996 **** C.A.V. JUDGMENT (Per N.J.Pandya,J.) The petitioner-Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat, is disputing the correctness and legality of the award that came to be given in Reference I.T.No.5 of 1994 and Reference I.T.No.226 of 1994. The first one is at the instance of the workmen of respondent no.1 Companny for revision of wage-scales and the second one is at the instance of respondent no.1 Company praying for freezing of dearness allowance etc. During the pendency, it seems, that the matter came to be settled between the representatives of the workmen and the respondentt-Company. On behalf of the workmen, 20 persons said to be authorised, have signed the settlement. Against this alleged settlement, the present petitioner-Panchayat came before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.59 of 1995 which came to be disposed of by this Court on 22-2-1995 directing the Tribunal to examine the settlement and find out whether it is just, legal, fair and bonafide or not. A time limit was fixed for the purpose. The Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, by its order dated 25-8-1995 came to the conclusion that the settlement dated 6-2-1995 between the Company and 20 representatives of the employees, is just, fair, legal and proper and in terms thereof, award came to be passed. Challenging this finding and conclusion of the Industrial Tribunal, the present petition has been filed before us by the petitioner-Mazdoor Panchayat, one of the Unions, said to be having membership amongst the employees of respondent no.1 Company. Respondents nos.2 & 3 are other such Unions.
2.By Caveat, L.A. Mr.D.G.Chauhan with learned Sr.Counsel Mr.V.B.Patel is appearing for respondent no.1 Company.
3.The matter has been heard at length, at admission stage and for the reasons stated hereafter, we are of the opinion that no ground is made out for admission of the matter.
4.We are told by Mr.N.R.Sahani, appearing for the petitioner Union that before the Tribunal, in view of the aforesaid dispute as to the correctness or otherwise of the settlement, oral evidence was led and he had supplied for our purpose, a copy of the oral deposition of some of the witnesses recorded before the Tribunal. He had also supplied to us, brief details as to the controversy involved and had argued the matter at length and very ably, if we may say so. However, though the case for the employees was exposed by all the three Unions, the fact remains that 20 workmen entered into the compromise on 6-2-1995 under Sec.12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Unless, therefore, it is made out that these representatives were not, in fact, the representatives of the Union or that the signatures obtained from the workmen in general for getting these 20 persons appointed as representatives, were a massive exercise in fraud and coercion, the settlement obviously will have to be accepted. That is exactly what the Tribunal seems to have done.
3.The Tribunal has noted more than once in the course of its judgment that, at the relevant time, there were 871 workmen employed in respondent no.1 Company. Out of whom, 767 workmen have accepted the terms of the settlement. This would mean, as worked out by the Tribunal, that 88% of the workmen are in favour of the settlement. This alone, ordinarily, would set at rest the controversy as to the settlement. We agree with L.A. Mr.Sahani that by sheer number, this controversy cannot be decided. Therefore, we read the oral evidence and also considered the annexures to the petition.
4.Annexure-C, page 73, is the copy of the reply filed by General Secretary of the petitioner-Union in the said Special Civil Application No.59 of 1995. The said petition was filed by respondent no.1 Company and during its pendency, the matter came to be settled by the said agreement. Except for alleging that workers are coerced and under pressure signatures are obtained and the settlement is entered into and also an affidavit is sworn to on 13-2-1995, no details of the alleged coercive tactics or subsequently came to be called as fraud on workmen are even remotely hinted at in the said affidavit. Before the Tribunal, Mahesh Acharya, Finance Manager of the Company has been examined at Exh.47. During his cross-examination, questions of general nature were put making vague reference to the alleged coercive exercise. No doubt, there is a reference to presence of police officers on 13-2-1995 or thereabout.
5.According to the petitioner, one Mohabatsingh Rajput is the person responsible for the entire coup. He is a head-strong person and he was detained in COFEPOSA or in such detention statutues. Said Mohabatsingh has been examined before the Tribunal and it turned out that he was arrested for offence under Narcotic and Psychotropic Substance Act and has undergone imprisonment also. However, with regard to his alleged activity of browbeating or the workmen entering into the settlement either by employing coercive tactics or defrauding, no questions have been put to him during cross examination.
6.Later on, when the turn of the petitioner Union came, one of their witnesses Shri Thanaji, has set out this exercise in detail which clearly, under the circumstances, has been taken by the Tribunal as improvement and after-thought. In any case, the learned Tribunal Judge has appreciated the entire material before him and for the reasons stated in the judgment has come to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with the settlement. The settlement is otherwise also coming to an end after 3 months or little more. By the time the Tribunal gave its judgment, almost 90% of the workmen had accepted the settlement and only 10% were reluctant to accept. Exgratia payment has been made and as agreed to by that settlmenet, all other worken, except the 10% workmen have been paid thereunder.
7.All told therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the said decision of the Tribunal Judge, who after thorough examination of the evidence and in our opinion, correct appreciation thereof, has upheld the settlement. In doing so, the learned Judge has also objectively examined the terms of the settlement and has found them to be fair and just.
8.L.A. Mr.Sahani, had relied on 35(1) GLR 430, where it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court that what percentage of the workmen in a concern can be said to be a substantial number justifying a conciliation Officer tohold that there is an industrial dispute and not an individual dispute is a question of fact. Further, it has been held that in order to constitute an agreement, a settlement having a legal effect, all the requirements of Rule 61-A must be satisfied. In the instant case, the petitioner is relying on Rule 62(2)(b) and make a grievance that there should have been representatives duly authorised at a meeting of the workmen held for the purpose. Deposition of said Mohabatsingh, in our opinion, takes care of this situation and while agreeing with the finding of the learned Tribunal Judge, we do not see any infirmity on this score. The decision therefore, does not help the petitioner.
9.Mr.Sahani had also cited 22 GLR 243 where it has been held that settlement between the parties must be free and voluntary. We agree with this proposition. However, as observed in the judgment itself, mere pleading that the settlement was involuntary concilaition Officer cannot presume that agreement is binding. In the instant case, when the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the agreement is free and voluntary, obviously, it would be binding. So far as the petitioner-Panchayat is concerned, it has merely pleaded but failed to prove that it is not so.
10.Mr.Sahani referred to various part of the settlement and tried to make out a case that with reference to the demand made and the circumstances prevalent in the area and the industry, the workmen would not have agreed to the award of an amount or amenity as gathered from the settlement. Once having come to a conclusion that the agreement is free and fair, these details, in our opinion, will have little significance.
11.Otherwise also, at admission stage, when we have examined the matter fromthat angle, obviously, we are not entering into the merits of the settlement as sought to be attacked.
12.The net result is that the petition fails and is dismissed at admission stage, with no order as to costs. ****