AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.K. Rajan, J.—These writ petitions are filed to quash the Arbitration Award and Section 12(3) Settlement.
In the affidavit filed by the petitioners, it is stated that the petitioner company was having its manufacturing unit at Kandanchavady. It was
employing nine workmen. The petitioner company was suffering loss and found that there were surplus labour and it retrenched two workmen.
Therefore, the workmen indulged in illegal strike from 1.2.1994. Though physically present, the workmen did not do any work. Therefore, the
petitioner/employer issued a Circular on 1.2.1994 stating that if they indulge in illegal strike, they would not be paid salary and the management
would be forced to close the Unit. Thereafter, an agreement u/s 12(3) of the Act was concluded between the Union and the petitioner herein.
According to that, all the demands of the workmen, except the third one, were agreed to be referred to the arbitration. But, subsequently, to that
effect notification was not issued by the Government as contemplated under the Act. The Joint Commissioner of Labour who was appointed as
Arbitrator considered the issue and passed order. This petition has been filed to quash the order on the ground that neither Section 12(3)
settlement, nor the Award was published by the Government till the date of filing of the writ petitions. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioners
submits that in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Krishnaveni Transports and Others Vs. Special Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, Madras and Others, , where this Court has held that publication of the Arbitration Agreement as referred to in Section
10-A(3) of the Industrial Act is mandatory and if it is not complied with, that will vitiate the award. Since the award is binding on all the parties
who were not parties to the arbitration, it is necessary to publish the arbitration, so that such persons who are not parties to the agreement can
come before the Arbitrator to represent their case. The counsel also referred to another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnal
Leather Karamchari Sanghatan (Regd.) Vs. Liberty Footwear Company (Redg.) and others, , to the same effect.
In view of the above decisions and in view of the fact that the arbitration award has not been published by the Government, the award as well as
Section 12(3) settlement of the Act are unenforceable. Accordingly, the award and the Section 12(3) of the Act are set aside.
In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. Nos. 30714 and 30715 of 1994 are dismissed.