ORDER
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.
1. The petitioner, a registered trade union sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus to declare notification dated 13.12.2007 issued by respondent No. 1 whereby it called for applications from entrepreneurs for supply of buses on hire scheme for operation on the identified routes in the State of Andhra Pradesh, as illegal, unjust, contrary to law and the written commitment given by the Cabinet Sub-Committee.'
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the State Joint Secretary of the petitioner union averred that the petitioner and other unions operating in the Corporation served strike notice dated 27.5.2005, proposing to go on strike from any day on or after 12.6.2005, if the Corporation does not consider the demands submitted by them, that demand No. 13 of the charter of demands submitted by the Joint Action Committee (JAC) related to stopping of hiring of private buses by the Corporation, that when the Corporation did not resolve the demand amicably its employees went on strike from 4.7.2005 to 6.7.2005, that W.P. Nos. 14500 of 2005 and Batch were filed as Public Interest Litigation by certain persons before this Court and that the said writ petitions were disposed of by a common order on 6.9.2005. It is further averred that during the pendency of the said writ petitions, the Government of Andhra Pradesh filed counter affidavit wherein it was stated that in the meeting held before the Hon'ble Transport Minister on 1.7.2005 a decision was taken to the effect that no new buses will be hired and no renewals will be made and that the Corporation will also take necessary action to see that as many hired buses as possible are withdrawn in the shortest possible time. It is further averred that the Corporation instead of implementing the decision deviated from the same and hired 800 buses from the third week of August, 2007 and that the Corporation has thus violated minutes of the meeting held between the parties and that therefore, its action is illegal, unjust and contrary to law.
3. It is also averred that the Corporation is trying to privatize itself in the guise of hiring buses from the private operators, that presently the total strength of all categories of employees of the Corporation is 1,25,000 and if it is permitted to hire new buses, the employees who are working for decades will be thrown on the streets and staft would be found surplus due to retrenchment and it also affects promotional avenues of the employees. The petitioner also expressed apprehension that hiring of private buses would lead to causing accidents as the drivers of those buses are not trained and that the Corporation is financially sound and it can purchase its own vehicles by investing its own money and also by obtaining loans from various financial institutions who are prepared to give financial assistance and that by hiring the buses the Corporation is trying to help middlemen to earn huge profits in the transport business.
4. Separate counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Corporation and the Government of Andhra Pradesh-respondent No. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by the Chief Traffic Manager of the Corporation it is averred as under:
5. Out of the existing fleet, 7,200 buses are required to be replaced as they have already crossed 11,00,000 kms., of operation as on 31.12.2007 and another 500 buses are required for augmentation during the last three years. Replacement of old vehicles and augmentation of new services in tune with the growth in the passenger traffic is a continues process for which new buses are required every year. The accumulated loss incurred by the Corporation as on 31.3.2007 after adjusting the profits for the year 2006-07 is Rs. 1,398. 29 crores. The Corporation is not in a position to invest heavy capital for procurement of new buses. The Corporation could procure about 200 buses during the year 2006-07 and 2007-08 from the finances available with it. Under Section 18 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (for short 'the 1950 Act') it shall be the duty of the Corporation to exercise its powers as progressively to provide or secure or promote the provision of, an efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated road transport services in the state or part of the State for which it is established. To achieve the objective of the said obligation of the Corporation it is inevitable to take buses on hire from private entrepreneurs. Section 19(2)(h) of the 1950 Act empowers the Corporation to purchase or otherwise secure by agreement vehicles, carriages, carriages sheds, office building, depots, land, workshops, equipment, tools, accessories and spare parts for vehicles for use by the Corporation. Under Rule 307 of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 the Corporation is entitled to run any private vehicle taken on hire in case of emergency if it cannot procure its own vehicle to run its own service. Under the said provision, hiring of buses by the Corporation is permissible in law and as the Corporation could not procure the required vehicles from its own funds, it requested respondent No. 2 to accord permission to extend the hire contract period of existing hire buses and the same was accorded by respondent No. 2 vide its letter dated 15.4.2006. The Corporation again requested respondent No. 2 through its letter dated 18.5.2006 to permit it to procure new buses under hire scheme for replacement of old model hire buses and the same was agreed to by respondent No. 2 vide its letter dated 1.7.2006. In its board meeting held on 2.4.2007, the Corporation accorded approval for hiring of buses upto 20% of the schedules and under the impugned tender notification, the Corporation proposed to hire 1,660 buses, which constitute less than 20% of the total number of schedules. The Corporation is operating 17,656 buses of its own and it issued the tender notification for hiring of buses by following due procedure as provided in the 1950 Act.
6. That the petitioner union has no locus standi to question the policy decision of the Corporation and it served a strike notice on 20.12.2007 requiring the Corporation to cancel the impugned tender notification and the additional Commissioner of Labour convened a conciliation meeting on 2.1.2008. The Corporation had taken a stand before the said authority that hiring of buses is a policy matter and the petitioner union has no locus to interfere in the matter and the conciliation proceedings are still pending. The petitioner union having initiated proceedings on 20.12.2007 filed the present writ petition. The petitioner union submitted a charter of 14 demands of which demand No. 13 relates to stopping of hiring of private buses. Immediately, on receipt of strike notice, discussions were held before the Cabinet Sub-Committee on 1.7.2005 and the Cabinet Sub-Committee agreed for demand No. 13. In spite of accepting the demand by the Cabinet Sub-Committee, the employees went on strike from 4.7.2005 to 6.7.2005 and therefore, the petitioner has no moral right to insist on the assurance given by the Cabinet Sub-Committee. In W.P. No. 14389 of 2005 the Government filed a counter affidavit stating that the Cabinet Sub-Committee took a decision on 1.7.2005 that no new buses will be hired and no renewal will be made and the Corporation will take necessary action to see that as many hired buses as possible are withdrawn in the shortest possible time. The Cabinet Sub-Committee took such a decision considering the various factors prevailing during that time and in view of the critical financial position of the Corporation and with a view to provide properly coordinated services to the public, the decision taken by the Sub-Committee in the year 2005 was reviewed subsequently and the Corporation was accorded permission to hire buses. A policy decision taken at a particular point of time keeping in view the need of the hour can be reviewed and a new policy decision can be taken in the changed scenario keeping in view all the relevant factors as long as such policy decision is in accordance with the Acts and the Rules. A policy decision is also always amenable for change and it is not open to the petitioner union to contend that a decision taken at a particular time needs to be continued for all times to come which amounts to preventing the respondents from acting in accordance with the need as per the provisions of the 1950 Act.
7. That there is no basis for the petitioner's apprehension that due to hiring of buses the staff would be found surplus. Hiring of buses contributed to the profits of the corporation in view of the less operational cost. The scheme of hiring of buses was introduced in the year 1990 and there was no retrenchment so far of any employee due to hiring of private buses by the Corporation. The promotional avenues of the employees also are not affected as employees cannot claim promotion as a matter of right. There is no basis for the allegation that hiring of private buses would result in causing of accidents. The drivers employed by the private entrepreneurs are also duly trained and medically fit with sufficient experience. They are also subjected to periodical medical examination as in the case of regular drivers of the Corporation. As on 31.3.2007, the percentage of accidents involving A.P. Road Transport Corporation buses was 15.51 as against 8.31% of accidents involving hired buses. It is not true to suggest that the Corporation is earning huge profits and financially sound to purchase its own vehicles. Even after adjusting profits earned during 2005-06 and 2006-07 the accumulated loss is Rs. 1,398.29 crores and a sum of Rs.80 crores is still due to be paid to the employees of the Corporation towards third installment of arrears of revision of pay scale and the petitioner union is also constantly demanding payment of arrears of wage revision. Keeping in view the critical financial position of the Corporation, it was decided to hire the buses to meet the requirement of travelling public in public interest.
8. That tenders were finalized on 26.12.2007 and 27.12.2007 and allotment letters were issued to successful entrepreneurs.
9. Secretary, Transport, Roads and Buildings Department filed a separate counter affidavit. It is averred inter alia that the agreement entered on 2.7.2005 between JAC and Cabinet Sub-Committee was to avoid strike by the Corporation employees which would cause inconvenience to the public at large, that when the JAC was not keen on the negotiations and went on strike, the Government need not stick to their earlier promise and is entitled to change its position depending upon the need of the hour and the High Court only took note of the decision of the Government and did not say anything further. It is further averred that the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore recommended hiring of buses to improve the finances of the Corporation and that the Government has no intention to privatize the Corporation in the guise of hiring buses from the private operators nor it has any intention either to decrease the staff or to retrench the staff which was shown as surplus and also hinder the promotional avenues of the employees.
10. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner union, the petitioner stated that the Corporation earned profits of Rs. 177 crores and 200 crores respectively during the years 2006-07 and 2007-08 and attributed the Corporation's failure to replace the buses to its alleged inefficient handling of the administration and re-iterated its stand that the Corporation is solely trying to introduce privatization in the guise of hiring the buses. It is also stated that in pursuance of the settlement arrived at, respondent No. 2 issued proceedings dated 25.7.2005 and that the said settlement is binding till it is replaced by the new settlement. The petitioner denied the allegation that it has no locus standi to question the policy decision on the premise that it is a recognized union having the bargaining capacity in respect of various demands and to protect the interests of the Corporation as well as that of the employees. The Corporation retrenched several employees consequent on the hiring of the private buses in Nellore region.
11. The petitioner also filed an affidavit on 20.1.2008 wherein it is mentioned that on account of allotment of hired buses on various routes, 67 conductors and drivers were terminated by order dated 29.11.2007 in various depots in the Nellore region.
12. An additional counter affidavit was filed by the Senior Law Officer of the Corporation wherein the averment that the retrenchment of 67 conductors and drivers in Nellore region was made on account of hiring of buses was denied. It is explained therein that since the Corporation's conductors are deployed in the hired buses also there will be no occasion for retrenching the conductors and that as the contract period of the conductors/drivers in that region expired on 31.12.2007 they were retrenched and they will be again engaged based on the requirement in the month of March, 2008. It is further stated that 29 drivers and 12 conductors out of the retrenched employees were already engaged on 9.1.2008 based on schedules.
13. Though the pleadings of the petitioner, as noted supra, raised several aspects, at the hearing Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments only to one aspect, namely, that the decision taken by the Cabinet Sub-Committee on 1.7.2005 constitutes 'settlement' within the meaning of Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the 1947 Act') and that therefore, the respondents cannot go back on the settlement without following the procedure prescribed in Section 19(6) of the 1950 Act. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel relied upon the judgment in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. D.J. Bahadur : (1981)ILLJ1SC .
14. The learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents contended that the purported agreement does not satisfy the definition of 'settlement' under Section 2(p) of the 1947 Act. He further contended that hiring of buses is a policy decision which is taken in the best interests of the Corporation and that even if an understanding was arrived at at an earlier point of time, the respondents are not prevented under law from revising its policy decision. So-long as such policy decisions, contends the learned Advocate General, are not in violation of any statutory provisions, they would not be interfered by the Courts. He further contended that no legal right of the petitioner is violated and no mandamus to enforce an agreement which is not a settlement in the eye of law can be sought for.
15. In view of the respective submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the decision of the Cabinet Sub-Committee taken on 1.7.2005 is 'settlement' within the definition of Section 2(p) of the 1947 Act?
16. In order to decide the above framed point, it is necessary to consider the definition of 'settlement' in Section 2(p) and Section 19(6) of the 1947 Act, which reads as follows:
'settlement' means a settlement arrived at, in the course of a conciliation proceeding and includes a written agreement between the employer, and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent to an officer authorized in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer.
Section 19(6) Notwithstanding the expiry of the period of operation under Sub-section (3), the award shall continue to be binding on the parties until a period of two months has elapsed from the date on which notice is given by any party bound by the award to the other party or parties intimating its intention to terminate the award.
17. The above re-produced definition of 'settlement' consists of two parts. The first part relates to a settlement arrived at in the course of a conciliation proceeding. The second part relates to a written agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding. In the case of such an agreement, the provision requires that the same shall be signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy of such agreement shall be sent to an officer authorized in this behalf by the appropriate government and the conciliation officer.
18. It is nobody's case that a settlement was arrived at in the course of a conciliation proceeding before a conciliation officer. Therefore, the first part of the definition is not attracted to the present case. The petitioner in its affidavit filed in support of the writ petition pleaded that with regard to hiring of private buses it was agreed in the meeting held before the Transport Minister on 1.7.2005 that no new buses will be hired and no renewals will be made and that the Corporation will also take necessary action to see that as many hired buses as possible are withdrawn in the shortest possible time. To constitute a settlement, the written agreement must be signed by the employer and the workmen. It is not pleaded by the petitioner that the employer, namely, the Corporation and the petitioner representing the workmen signed on the agreement. Further it is neither the pleaded case of the petitioner nor any evidence is produced before the Court that a copy of the written agreement was sent to the conciliation officer. Indeed nowhere in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition the petitioner used the word 'settlement' and pleaded that the impugned notification is in violation of the provisions of Section 19(6) of the 1947 Act. It is only in para-7 of the reply affidavit that the petitioner used the word 'settlement' and averred that the same is binding till it is replaced by the new settlement. Even in the reply affidavit the petitioner has not pleaded that the employer, namely, the Corporation is a party to the agreement and the same was sent to the conciliation officer. The petitioner made a reference to the purported proceedings dated 25.7.2007 wherein the Corporation is stated to have issued proceedings in pursuance of the alleged settlement. The petitioner did not file a copy of the said proceedings, nor it divulged its contents in the reply affidavit.
19. After completion of hearing and judgment was reserved, on 07.02.2008, the learned Counsel for the petitioner filed a Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.10.2005 by way of additional material papers. Today the learned Counsel also supplemented his arguments with reference to the said Memorandum of Understanding. A reading of the said Memorandum discloses that the same was entered between the Management of the Corporation and the representatives of six Unions including the petitioner Union on 19.10.2005. It is appropriate to extract the relevant portions of the said Memorandum hereunder:
The Government of A.P. have constituted a Cabinet Sub-Committee consisting of Hon'ble Ministers for Transport, Commercial Taxes and Roads & Buildings vide G.O.Ms. No. 137, dated 24.06.2005. The Cabinet Sub-Committee held discussions with the JAC on 27th and 29th of June 2005 and 1th, 2nd and 3rd July 2005. The JAC have submitted another list of 3 demands on 27.06.2005 and 12 demands on 28.06.2005, in addition to their original 18 demands for redressal. After detailed discussions, the Cabinet Sub-Committee has issued separate proceedings.
With regard to the demands relating to the Corporation, the VC & MD held discussions with the JAC on 22nd and 28th June 2005 and on 1st and 2nd July 2005.
However, the (sic) made by the Management and the Government to prevent the strike did not bear fruit and the Unions went on strike from 4.7.2005, which led to filing of Writ Petition Nos. 14389 of 2005, 14500 of 2005 and 16998 of 2005 under Public Interest Litigation before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.
The Hon'ble High Court admitted the Writ Petitions mentioned above on 5-7-2005 and 6-7-2005 respectively and ordered as follows:
Without going into the merits of the controversies raised before us, we are passing the following order with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
1. That the Govt. shall take steps to implement the decisions already agreed upon by the Government during the negotiations between the Cabinet Sub-Committee and the Joint Action Committee.
2. That the negotiations shall start immediately between the Joint Action Committee and the Cabinet Sub-Committee and the negotiations shall be completed and finalized within a period of three weeks.
3. That the State Government or the Corporation shall not take any action against any employee of the Corporation, whether permanent or casual, for having participated in the strike.
4. That the State Government shall ensure that all buses belonging to the Corporation shall remain operational and do not have to stop working because of shortage of fuel.
5. That the strike shall be called off by the Joint Action Committee immediately.
Let the Writ Petition s come up again after three weeks.
In accordance with the above orders of the Hon'ble High Court, the strike was called off by the JAC on 6-7-05.
In compliance with the orders of Hon'ble High Court, the Cabinet Sub-Committee convened meetings with the JAC and the other Unions on 7.7.2005, 12.7.2005, 13.7.2005 and again on 23.8.2005 and 31.8.2005, but there was no meeting point.
The Cabinet Sub-Committee held discussions with the representatives of the JAC on 15.10.2005, following which the VC & MD held discussions with the JAC on 15.10.2005 and 17.10.2005. As there was no settlement, the employees of APSRTC went on strike w.e.f. the first service of 18.10.05, under the call given by the JAC.
Again, discussions were held by Cabinet Sub-Committee in the Chambers of Hon'ble Minister for Transport and subsequently by VC & MD in Bus Bhavan on 19.10.2005. In accordance with the discussions, the Corporation entered into this Memorandum of Understanding with the JAC, to avert the strike.
Terms of Settlement
1. It is agreed to implement the Dearness Allowance installment due from 01.07.2005 to all the eligible employees, in the Salary Bill of November 2005. The arrears from July to October will be paid before 15th December, 2005.
2. It is agreed to pay the balance Leave Encashment for the year 2004, before 31st December, 2005.
3. It is agreed to pay an advance amount of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as and when the Govt., releases the balance amount due towards reimbursement of concessions for the year 2005-06, which will be adjusted in the amount payable towards next Revision of Pay Scales.
4. It is agreed to discuss and settle the Revision of Pay Scales due, with the Recognized union, at the earliest.
5. (a) It is agreed to regularize the casual Drivers and Conductors recruited up to 1999 by March 2007, in a phased manner, subject to the permission of the Govt., under provisions of Act 2 of 1994.
(b) However, the proposals to regularize 550 Casual Crew will be sent to the Govt. immediately, to accord permission of the Govt. under provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and they will be regularized as soon as the permission is received.
6. It is agreed that there will be no victimization of employees who participated in the strike. All the Casual and Contract employees who are on rolls before the commencement of the strike will be taken back on duty. However, the period of contract will be the same as indicated in the original contract.
7. It is agreed to form a Committee under the Chairmanship of Financial Advisor, Executive Director (E) as Convener, Executive Director (Admn.) and Executive Director (O) and the four JAC representatives as Members to examine the issue of outsourcing/contract system in APSRTC and to submit a report within two months.
8. It is agreed that medical facilities to retired employees as resolved by the Corporation Board on 08.10.2003 will be implemented with effect from November 2005, after working out the financial implication and other modalities, limiting it to the retired employee only. The feasibility to extend the benefits to the spouse will be examined further.
9. it is agreed that the existing number of TIMs and Single Crew Duties will be continued and any further introduction will not be made until 30th June 2006. Further, a Committee constituted with the Financial Advisor, Executive Director (Admn.), Executive Director (O), Executive Director (E) and four representatives of JAC will examine this issue.
10. It is agreed that the existing privilege of concessional journey for retired employees of APSRTC in APSRTC Busses will be continued.
11. It is agreed that the prevailing practice of bearing medical expenditu re of the serving employee and his/her dependents will be continued.
12. It is agreed that the Government will be requested, once again, to accord permission to the Corporation to provide employment to the dependents of deceased employees under 'Bread Winner Scheme', as a welfare measure.
13. It is agreed to provide additional remuneration to clerical staff when they perform Jathra duties and recruitment work.
14. It is agreed that, in case of suspension of Conductors, in deserving cases, the RM concerned, will be given liberty to post the Conductors in the same Depot after lifting ofsuspension.
15. It is agreed to rescind the Circular No. PD-48/2004, dated 28.12.2004.
16. It is agreed that in case of Bogus Licence Drivers the Government will be requested to accord permission to the Corporation to appoint the genuine licence holders, on regular basis as per the Circular No. PD. 43/ 2000, dated 11.08.2000.
17. It is agreed that in future, clerical staff that are found excess, will not be transferred under Regulation-5, unless there is a request from the concerned.
18. It is agreed that leave will be granted as long as it does not lead to cancellation of services. The system of granting of leave will be made more transparent and detailed guidelines will be issued from Head Office.
19. It is agreed that the Government will be requested to exempt APSRTC from the provisions of Act 2 of 1994.
20. It is agreed to treat the period of absence of the employees, due to participation in the strike on 4th, 5th, 6th July 2005 and 18th and 19th October 2005 as Earned Leave due, purely on compassionate grounds, which shall not be a precedent for future.
This 'Memorandum of Understanding' is reached in full and final settlement of all the demands raised in the Strike Notices dated 27.05.2005, 27.06.2005, 28.06.2005 and 08.09.2005 of the JAC.
Based on this Memorandum of Understanding the Trade Unions of the Joint Action Committee have agreed to call off the strike w.e.f. the midnight of 19.10.2005.
Signatures of The Parties Sd/- Sd/-.Representatives Representativesof Management of Unions.
20. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed heavy reliance on the portion of the Memorandum of Understanding, which extracted the order of this Court; in particular, the portion of the order which reads 'that the Government shall take steps to implement the decisions already agreed upon by the Government during negotiations between the Sub-Committee and the Joint Action Committee' and submitted that the said portion of the order of the High Court proves beyond any pale of doubt that an agreement was already reached and that the same constitutes settlement.
21. I have not felt persuaded to accept this contention. The order of this Court extracted above, does not show that a settlement was arrived at between the Joint Action Committee and the Corporation; but, on the other hand, this Court has taken note of the agreement between the Cabinet Sub-Committee and the Joint Action Committee.
22. Indeed, the later part of the Memorandum shows that despite holding of discussions by the Cabinet Sub-Committee with the representatives of the Joint Action Committee on various dates on 7.7.2005, 12.7.2005, 13.7.2005, 23.8.2005, 31.8.2005 and 15.10.2005, and by the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation on 15.10.2005 and 17.10.2005 with the JAC on the compliance of the above mentioned order of this Court, no settlement could be arrived at, which led to the employees of the Corporation going on strike with effect from 18-10-2005. The material on record thus clearly shows that the only settlement which was arrived at between the Corporation and the employees was on 19-10-2005. It is of interest to note that even in the terms of settlement arrived at on 19.10.2005 and extracted above, stoppage of hiring of busses by the Corporation is not included as one of the terms of settlement. Had the agreement dated 01.07.2005 been intended to be complied with by the Corporation and the Unions, one cannot see any reason whatsoever for the parties to the Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.10.2005 not to refer to and incorporate the said condition as one of the terms of settlement. This document produced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, instead of strengthening its case, completely belies its plea that the Corporation reached a settlement with the Unions on the hiring of the busses.
23. Having given my serious consideration, I am of the view that unless the petitioner is able to show that the Corporation is a party to the written agreement and a copy of which is communicated to the conciliation officer, the agreement reached on 1.7.2005 cannot be said to attain the status of 'settlement' within the definition of Section 2(p) of the 1947 Act. A fortiori, the provisions of Section 19(6) of the 1947 Act are not attracted and the Corporation has no obligation to comply with such a provision. In this view of the matter, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation (1 supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has no application to the case on hand.
24. The learned Counsel relied upon the judgments of this Court in The Management of Agnigundala Lead Project Hindustan Zinc Ltd., and Ors. v. Hindustan Zinc Workers Union and Anr. 1988-II LLJ 318 (A.P.) and Hindustan Zinc Workers Union and another v. Management of Agnigundala Lead Project, Hindustan Zinc Ltd., and Ors. 1988-II LLJ 207 (A.P.) and contended that even the Minutes of a meeting between the Workers' Union and the Management constitute settlement within the definition of Section 2(p) of the 1947 Act.
25. I have carefully gone through the said two judgments cited by the learned Counsel and, in my considered view, they have no application to this case either.
26. In the judgment in The Management of Agnigundala Lead Project Hindustan Zinc Ltd., and Ors. 1988-II LLJ 318 (A.P.) a Driller-cum-Blaster working in Hindustan Zinc Ltd., was dismissed from service, which led to the workmen going on strike and also filing of a suit by the workman questioning the order of his dismissal. The Conciliation Officer initiated conciliation proceedings, which ended in a conciliation failure report. Thereafter, the Conciliation Officer started exploring the possibility of settlement at the instance of the Management and the same resulted in settlement which was recorded in the form of 'Minutes of discussions' signed by four representatives of management and five representatives of workmen. Dealing with the case, this Court held that irrespective of the name given by the parties to the agreement, the same amounted to settlement as it was signed by responsible officers of the management and workmen.
27. The facts in Hindustan Zinc Workers Union and another (3 supra) are also more or less similar, where a settlement was reached before the Assistant Labour Commissioner between the employer and the workers' union after reporting of failure of conciliation proceedings. Considering these facts, this Court held that if the agreement between the parties was placed on record by way of minutes signed by both the parties as a result of efforts made by the Conciliation Officer, the minutes constitute settlement, which is enforceable under the provisions of the 1947 Act.
28. As the judgments in these two cases turned on the above-mentioned facts, which bear no similarity whatsoever to the facts of the present case, they are of no avail to the petitioner.
29. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner in passing referred to the counter affidavit filed by Sri A.K. Tigidi, Principal Secretary, Transport, Roads and Buildings in W.P. No. 14389 of 2005, wherein he stated that considering the demand of the union instructions were issued in government letter dated 25.7.2005 directing the Corporation not to hire buses and not to renew the existing agreements with the hired buses, learned Counsel has not advanced any argument based on the said counter affidavit.
30. Though the learned Advocate General sought to justify the action of the respondents in going back on and not sticking n the agreement on the ground that the petitioner union itself did not honour its commitment by going on strike immediately after the agreement from 4.7.2005 to 6.7.2005, and also on various other grounds such as the huge accumulated losses of the Corporation, report of IIM etc., there is no need for me to delve into these aspects, since as noted earlier, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged the only point which was already discussed above. In view of my finding given supra, the petitioner has no legally enforceable right to seek a writ of mandamus to enforce agreement dated 01.7.2005.
31. In the absence of any settlement, the Corporation cannot be prevented from exercising its powers and discharging its obligations under the provisions of 1950 Act. As rightly pointed out in the pleadings of the Corporation and re-iterated by the learned Advocate General at the hearing that Section 19(2)(h) of the 1950 Act empowers the Corporation to purchase or otherwise secure by agreement, vehicles etc.
32. Therefore, the impugned notification through which the Corporation is seeking to secure hired vehicles is in consonance with the statutory powers of the Corporation and this Court will not and cannot issue a writ of mandamus to prevent a statutory body from exercising its statutory powers and discharging its statutory obligations. (See the judgments of the Supreme Court in Chingleput Bottlers v. Majestic Bottling Co. : [1984]3SCR190 and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Ismail : (1991)IILLJ332SC .
33. In the premises afore-mentioned, the petitioner failed to make out any case for issuing a writ as prayed for and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.