Workmen of Nangal Fertilizer Corporation of India vs The Management of the Fertilizer Corporation of India (Nangal Unit)

G.R. Majithia, J.—This judgment disposes of C.W.P. No. 3197 of 1979 and C.W.P. No. 178 of 1980. In these petitions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been made to the award of the Arbitrator dated May 9, 1979.

Facts firm :-

Settlement was arrived at between the Management of the Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. (Nangal Unit) and the workmen of the Nangal Unit of the Fertilizer Corporation of India vide Memorandum of Settlement Dated October 8, 1970 with regard to the following :-

(i) Bonus payable

(ii) Production Bonus Scheme.

In the meeting held on August 31, 1971, the Board of Directors of the Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited (for short, the Corporation) passed a resolution deciding that the Statutory Bonus to the Corporation''s employees with effect from the year 1970-71 should be paid on Corporation-wise basis in respect of all operating Units, P & D Division and the Central Office, excluding all projects under construction. The decision of the Board of Directors was circulated by the Finance Manager, Food Corporation of India Ltd. vide Ref. No. A/Pers/Bonus/70/71/7885, dated October 11, 1971. The workmen of the Nangal Unit of the Corporation objected to the decision of the Board of Directors and insisted for payment of statutory bonus on Unit-wise basis at least foe a period of five years from October, 1970 till the Settlement dated October 8, 1970 was to remain in force. The dispute between the workmen and the Management of the Nangal Unit of the Corporation was referred by the Governor of Punjab u/s 10A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (for short, the Act) for arbitration. Vide Arbitration Agreement dated January 20, 1978, the parties to the dispute agreed to refer the following dispute to the arbitration of Justice B. N. Lokur, D-380, Defence Colony, New Delhi:-

(a) Whether in view of the Settlement of October 8, 1970, the management could switch over to the payment of Statutory Bonus to the Nangal Unit workmen on Corporation-wise basis;

(b) If the Management were not so entitled, then whether the workmen were entitled to more than statutory Bonus than what was paid to them on Corporation-wise basis for the years 1970-71 onwards to 1974-75 and, if so, how much ?

Statement of claim was filed by the workmen of the Nangal Unit of the Corporation through their representatives before the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator entered into reference and, after consideration of the entire material placed before him by the contesting parties and hearing their respective counsel at length, vide his award dated May 9, 1979, decided thus :-

"As a result of the above discussion, my decision on the matter in dispute (a) is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Corporation could switch over to the payment of statutory bonus to the Nangal Unit workmen on Corporation-wise basis from the accounting year 1071-72."

The precise submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Settlement dated October 8, 1970, arrived at between the Management of the Nangal Unit of the Corporation and its workmen envisaged that the same would be binding on the parties for a minimum period of five yeas from its date and will continue to remain binding thereafter also till any party gives in writing to the other for discontinuance of the agreement. This condition could not be suspended, rescinded or negatived. The workmen were entitled to payment of bonus as mentioned in the Memorandum of Settlement dated October 8, 1970 for the period mentioned therein. The submission is bereft of any merit. The reference to the Arbitrator was necessitated because of the Memorandum of Settlement. The Arbitral or in the opening para of his award stated thus : -

"These arbitration proceedings have arisen out of a reference made to me as sole Arbitrator under sub-section (1) of Section 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in the matter of certain disputes between the Workmen and the Management of the Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited (Nangal Unit), Maya Nangal, District Ropar, Punjab, under an Agreement dated 20th January, 1978, marked C-2."

and, on consideration of the entire material including the settlement he arrived at the decision reproduced supra It is not open to the petitioner in the wake of the arbitration award to urge that Memorandum of Settlement dated October 8 1970 would remain in operation and the Management was bound to comply with the terms of the said settlement. The award is fait accompli. The objection, if any, can be taken with regard to the award. No such objection was taken by the learned counsel at the time of hearing of the petition. He cited some authorities to substantiate his plea that the Memorandum of Settlement dated October 8, 1970 was binding on the parties to it. These authorities are inapplicable to the facts of the instant case. If the settlement arrived at between the Management of the Nangal Units of the Corporation and its workmen before the conciliation Officer had not resulted into the reference of the dispute, converted under the settlement to the named arbitrator u/s 10A of the Act there may have been some substance in the submission But, in the instant case, the settlement between the parties led to the reference of the subject, matter of dispute coverted there under to the named arbitrator u/s 10A of the Act. This section was enacted with the object of enabling employers and employees to voluntarily refer their disputes to arbitration themselves by a written agreement. The agreement has to be in the prescribed form and it must specify the name of the arbitrator and a copy of the arbitration agreement should be forwarded to the ''appropriate Government'', on receipt of which the ''appropriate Government'' is required to publish the same in the Official Gazette. In the instant case the parties to the dispute had named the arbitrator and entered into an agreement in that behalf The appropriate Government took steps to assist the further proceedings before the named arbitrator. The arbitrator after investigating the dispute and adjudicating upon the dispute has to submit the arbitration award to the appropriate Government duly signed by him, and the appropriate Government has to publish it, like any other award under the Act, within a period of thirty days from the date of its receipt, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 17 and it is final after being published u/s 17(2) ibid. The award of an industrial Arbitrator is amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (See in this connection : Rohtas Industries Ltd. and Another Vs. Rohtas Industries Staff Union and Others, However, interference with the award of the industrial arbitrator is permissible in writ jurisdiction if it is established that the arbitrator recorded findings based on no legal evidence and the findings are either his ipse dixit or based on conjectures and surmises or his findings suffer from additional infirmity of non-application of mind, or it is perverse. (See in this connection, Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Administration, C. A. No. 2386 of 1984 decided by the apex Court on September 27, 1984). The learned counsel could not point out any such infirmity.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petitions are devoid of any merit and are dismissed. However, since the petitioners are workmen. I leave the parties to bear their own costs.