Associated Glass Industries Ltd. vs Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh and Others

The petitioner resisted the reference made in G.O. Ms. No. 1171, dated 10th August, 1983, on the ground that the union representing eleven workmen have settled the claim u/s 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on 19th November, 1983. According to the settlement, the workmen have resigned and also received the terminal benefits, and, therefore, the reference is bad in law. The Industrial Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 10th April, 1985, held that the workmen are disputing that they voluntarily resigned and, that, therefore, there is no agreement, that there is no settlement and thereby, the reference cannot be dismissed on that ground. Accordingly, the objection raised by the petitioner was rejected. Assailing the legality thereof, the writ petition has been filed.

The contention of Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that once there is a settlement u/s 12(3) of the Act and having agreed to receive the terminal benefits pursuant to the settlement and in fact they have received the same, the very reference is bad in law. In the claim petition made before the Tribunal, there is no reference to the settlement arrived at between the parties and the binding nature thereof by the concerned workmen. The settlement u/s 12(3) of the Act is dated 19th November, 1983. In that, the relevant paragraph is paragraph (2), which reads thus :

''The management has agreed to extend the above-said benefits to the eleven workmen who were dismissed and whose cases were referred for adjudication under G.O. Ms. No. 1171, dated 3rd August, 1983, provided they also agree to withdraw their claim before the Hon''ble Industrial Tribunal at Hyderabad by filing a memo of compromise by both parties seeking as award accordingly in terms of the compromise. The amounts mentioned in paras 1 and 2 shall be paid to the workmen within five days from the date of receipt of their resignation letters."

The settlement was signed on behalf of the management by one Mr. M. V. S. S. Acharyulu, Factory Manager, and Mr. C. V. Krishnaiah, Chief Executive. On behalf of the workmen, it was signed by Mr. Venkata Reddy, the President; Mr. Yadagiri, Chief Vice-President; Mr. C. Sateesh, General Secretary, and Mr. A. Narendra, President of the Associated Glass Industries Employees'' Union. It is not the case in the Tribunal below that the settlement u/s 12(3) of the Act is vitiated by any fraud, mis-representation or coercion. There is express reference in this settlement with regard to the claim of the eleven workmen and that there is a settlement that they voluntarily agreed to go out of service and receive the terminal benefits. Once the agreement u/s 12(3) of the Act is not disputed, the validity and the binding nature of the agreement is not disputed. Then the reference itself is bad. Accordingly, the objection raised by the petitioner is upheld. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 350.