Chemplast Employees Union vs Government of Tamil Nadu and Another

K.K. Sasidharan, J.—The petitioner challenges the order dated October 21, 1997 on the file of the first respondent rejecting their request to

refer the industrial dispute to resolve the pending disputes between the employer and the employees.

The request of the Union to refer the disputes was rejected by the Government on the ground that there was no necessity to refer the issues

raised in the reference application.

According to the petitioner, the first respondent while rejecting the application u/s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act was not expected to

consider the merits of the matter. However in the impugned order the first respondent has decided the very dispute itself which was beyond the

jurisdiction in a proceeding u/s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Government was not justified in considering the issues on merits while rejecting the

application for reference. According to the learned counsel the role of the Government was very much limited. The Government has to form an

opinion as to whether industrial disputes arose or apprehended between the management and the workers so as to refer such disputes for,

adjudication. Therefore the first respondent was not justified in considering the merits of the matter while rejecting the application for reference.

The learned counsel for the second respondent justified the order passed by the first respondent. According to the learned counsel the first

respondent was expected to form an opinion as to whether any dispute exists or was apprehended and in the process of forming such opinion, the

Government was bound to consider primary materials. While considering such materials, if the Government was of the view that the workers are

not entitled for an adjudication of those issues which attained'' finality earlier or those demands were against the certified standing orders, the

Government was well within their jurisdiction to reject the application by indicating reasons. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the

subsequent settlements arrived at between the petitioner and the second respondent.

The dispute involved in this matter is of the year 1993 and the conciliation conducted in the matter also ended in failure. The first respondent as

per order dated October 21, 1997 rejected the request for reference. It is found from the typed set of papers circulated by the learned counsel for

the second respondent that even after the subject dispute there were settlements entered into between the petitioner and the second respondent on

October 25, 1995, November 6, 2000, July 2, 2004 and on December 5, 2007.

By way of subsequent settlements, the existing dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent was resolved.

The settlement arrived at between the parties u/s 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act on November 6, 2000 contains a provision that all the

pending demands were settled and it reads thus:

The union hereby drop all pending demands and claims including those contained in the Charter of Demands, dated August 31, 1998 which have

not been conceded or considered under this settlement. The union hereby agrees not to make any further fresh demands or claims in future during

the period of operation of this settlement which will involve additional financial commitment to the company direct or indirect.

Similar provisions are contained in the subsequent settlements dated July 2, 2004 and December 5, 2007. In fact clause 26 of the Settlement

dated July 2, 2004 clearly provides that the Union hereby dropped all the pending demands and claims including those contained in the Charter of

Demands dated August 26, 2002 which was not conceded or considered under such settlement. Therefore the petitioner has given a categorical

undertaking that all the pending demands were settled. The said settlement is still in force.

The dispute which is involved in this writ petition was pending as on the date on which Settlement u/s 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act was

arrived at between the parties on November 6, 2000, July 2, 2004 and on December 5, 2007. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled to make a

reference at this point of time even if it is found that the impugned order was not justified.

The industrial Disputes Act was introduced with the laudable object of ensuring good relationship between the employers and employees as it

would ultimately improve social justice. The maintenance of industrial harmony and cordial relationship between the employers and the employees

are absolutely necessary for industrial peace. Therefore it should be the endeavor of the employers and employees to refrain from doing anything

which would affect the cordial relationship between them. Therefore I am of the view that the relationship between the petitioner and the second

respondent should be maintained and neither of them should engage in anything which would ruin the industrial harmony. There is no winner or

loser in this writ petition and the disposal is only on account of the subsequent developments.

This writ petition is disposed of as indicated above with the fond hope that the employees and the management would continue to maintain their

relationship in the interest of both the parties and the society as well. No costs.