ORDER
A.K. Shrivastava, J.
1. 'An Act to make provision for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes and for certain other purposes', is the preamble of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act'). The Supreme Court in the case of Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni v. State of Madras : [1960]3SCR887 has observed that the preamble is a key to the enactment and it may legitimately be construed to solve any ambiguity or to fix the meaning of words which may have more than one, or to keep the effect of the statute within its real scope, whenever the enacting part is in any of these respects open to doubt. The scope of the Act is a progressive piece of legislation and design to settle the disputes on a new pattern hitherto intention to judicial machinery set in the country. The object of all labour legislation is to ensure fair wages and to prevent disputes so that production might not be adversely affected. The landmark two decisions of the Supreme Court on this point are Banaras Ice Factory Ltd. v. Its Workmen : (1957)ILLJ253SC and Hariprasad Shivshanker Shukla and Anr. v. A.D. Divelkar and Ors. AIR 1957 SC 121.
2. The Union of India through its General Manager Security Paper Mill is the petitioner in this petition and has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated 2.9.1998.
3. The petitioner is engaged in production of papers for printing the currency notes. Presidential sanction was conveyed by Ministry of Finance by letter dated 30.5.1972 for Group Incentive Bonus Scheme (in short 'the Scheme') which came into force with effect from 1.6.1972. Before coming into force of the scheme, 3400 metric ton of currency note paper was manufactured. On account of the demand of more currency notes, the Government of India took the decision to increase the currency note paper production. Eventually the old machines of the petitioner mill were changed and it was thought to expand the ancillary unit. The demand of Indian Government was to enhance the currency note papers production up to 6000 metric ton per annum and to give effect to the demand, necessary change was to be made. As a result of which a decision was taken to amend the scheme and this decision was taken by the Management and Coordination Committee. An agreement was executed in the presence of Assistant Labour Commissioner on 11.4.1982. In the Co-ordination Committee of the labourers, there were two unions, namely, first 'Security Paper Mill Employees Union' and second 'Security Paper Mill Union'.
4. On 29.11.1982 the scheme was amended on the consent of both the parties. On account of the change in the paper mill, the nature of work and duty of the workmen was changed. In the agreement, there were a clause that on account of the change in the nature and duty of the workmen, the account of production in comparison to the nature and the duty of the workman should be examined by an expert and according to its report the scheme be made applicable and effective.
5. The Management got the amendment in the scheme examined by a firm of Bombay, namely, Ipcon Ltd. The said report of the firm was received in December, 1984, However, the Union dis-agreed to accept the recommendation of the expert and did not agree to get it implemented. According to the Union the scheme which was in force be kept intact without any change.
6. Thereafter, the Management sent notice under Section 19(2) of the Act on 15.3.1985 indicating therein that the agreement dated 11.4.1982 will be cancelled after two months. The conciliation proceeding was commenced before Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) at Bhopal, however, the conciliation failed on 3.6.1985. Thereafter, the Co-ordination Committee again submitted the dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Jabalpur in July, 1985 for conciliation which was in respect to the report of the Ipcon. During the pendency of the conciliation, the Government of India issued another letter in the name of President of India cancelling the Ministries' letter dated 30.5.1972 sanctioning the introduction of the incentive scheme. Since the conciliation failed, the appropriate Government vide its order dated L-42011/12/85-D.2(B) dated 15.5.1986 referred the matter to the Tribunal for its adjudication framing the question that:
Whether the action of the management of Security Paper Mills, Hoshangabad, M.P. in proposing to introduce new Group Incentive Scheme and in withdrawing the existing group Incentive Scheme by way or revocation of settlement vide their notice dated 15.3.1985 is justified? If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled
7. The parties submitted their statement of claim. According to the Union the letter dated 15.3.1985 terminating the settlement is arbitrary, unjust and unfair and it is also in violation to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It has been further submitted in the statement of claim by the Union that even otherwise the said letter is without any justification or necessity. (sic) the Ipcon is against the interest of the workmen and the recommendation is not beneficial to them. The Management has no right to give notice under Section 19(2) of the Act, similarly, the President of India has no authority to withdraw the scheme which was prevailing. On these premised facts and grounds it was submitted by the Union in its statement of claim that the scheme of 1972 which is still in existence be kept intact and it be declared that the same is still applicable.
8. As per the case of the Management in their statement of claim, it had a right to give notice under Section 19(2) of the Act. According to the Management on account of coming into force of the order of the President of India dated 22.8.1985, the old scheme of 1972 came to an end and the same is legal and in consonance to the rule. The report of the Ipcon Ltd. of Bombay is a valid report. On account of modernization of the paper mill and on account of the increase in the production, a change was necessary. The attitude of the Union is not positive and in the interest of the institution, as a result of which a notice under Section 19(2) of the Act was given. The scheme of 1972 has already come to an end since it is cancelled. It has also been putforth in the statement of claim filed by the Management that the settlement was arrived between the parties under Section 12(3) of the Act in presence of Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Jabalpur and accordingly the scheme of 1972 came to an end. Thus, the reference which has been referred to the Tribunal is not maintainable.
9. The Tribunal by its impugned award answered the reference and passed an award holding that notice dated 15.3.1985 is illegal and the same was set aside. It was further directed that the workmen of the petitioners' mill shall receive the incentive bonus in accordance to the scheme of 1972. It was further directed that the requisite payment be made within three months from the date of the award and the workman shall be entitled to the interest @ 12% per annum on the amount which was not paid to them.
10. The main contention of Shri U.K. Sharma, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri O.P. Namdeo is that another settlement was arrived between the Union as well as the Management on 21.10.1992 and this settlement has been totally suppressed by the Union during the Proceeding of the reference. The said settlement has been placed as Annexure A/21 along with the rejoinder. According to learned senior counsel, the workmen are obtaining double benefit. First under the scheme of 1972 and second under the settlement dated 21.10.1992 Annexure A/21 and it is not at all permissible under the law. It has been further submitted that since the impugned award of the Tribunal is totally silent in regard to the later settlement dated 21.10.1992, therefore the same be quashed and the matter be sent back to the Tribunal. It has also been put forth by learned senior counsel that the scheme of 1972 was superseded on account of subsequent amendment and it is not in the knowledge of the Union. It has been submitted by learned senior counsel that the workmen cannot get benefit under the scheme of 1972 since they are being benefited by the scheme of 1992 which came into existence on account of arrival of settlement dated 21.10.1992 (Annexure A/21). This settlement Annexure A/21 has been filed along with the rejoinder.
11. On the other hand Shri P.S. Nair, learned senior counsel submitted that no such show cause settlement dated 21.10.1992 (Annexure A/21) had arrived at between the Union and the management. The same was not filed in the Tribunal and therefore a new document, the authenticity of which the respondents are denying, cannot be filed for the first time in the High court as the filing of the same is beyond the scope of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It has been further propounded by learned senior counsel that if the said so called settlement would have been filed before the Tribunal it could have been shown that it had no sanctity in the eye of law. The petitioner has not filed the said so called settlement along with the memorandum of petition, and the same has been filed along with the rejoinder. According to learned senior counsel since no return has been filed, question of filing rejoinder along with so called settlement dated 21.10.1992 (Annexure A/21) has no sanctity in the eye of law. It has been further canvassed by learned senior counsel that the reference was made to the Tribunal in the year 1986 and therefore during the pendency of the reference no fresh settlement could have been arrived as there is a clear bar under Section 33(1)(a) of the Act in that regard. By inviting my attention to Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes, Rules (Central) 1957 (in short 'the Rules of 1957') it has been contended that if a settlement is arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings it should be in form 'H' and it should be signed by, in case of an employer, by the employer himself or by his authorized agent, and in case of a workman, either by President or Secretary of a Trade Union of a workman or by five representatives of the workman duly authorized in this behalf at a meeting of the workman held for the purpose. It has been contended by learned senior counsel that on the settlement of Annexure A/21 no one has signed on behalf of the Union i.e. on behalf of the Coordination Committee of Security Paper Mill Union which is the party to the reference case and therefore the said settlement is not at all binding on the Union respondent No. 1.
12. After having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be dismissed.
13. The purpose of quoting the preamble of the Act and the decisions mentioned in para 1, is that the various provisions enacted in the Act arc in regard to the investigation and the settlement of the Industrial Dispute. The aim and object of the Labour legislation is to ensure fair wages and to prevent disputes so that production might not be adversely affected. The Act is a progressive piece of legislation and has been designed to settle the disputes on a new pattern.
14. The entire emphasis made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that since the settlement of 1992 (Annexure A/21) is applicable between the parties and the same has been concealed by the Union (respondent No. 1) in the reference case and further the workman are obtaining the benefit under the said scheme/settlement, therefore the scheme of 1972 has been cancelled. According to learned senior counsel, in all fairness, the said scheme/ settlement Annexure A/21 ought to have been filed by the Union (respondent No. 1) before the Tribunal. I am not at all impressed by the said argument. The ball can be thrown in the Court of petitioner also in this manner that the Management was well acquainted with the said scheme/ settlement of 1992 (Annexure A/21) and who prevented them in filing the same before the Tribunal in the reference case, there is no explanation in this regard by the petitioner.
15. The hallmark and the authenticity of the settlement/ scheme of 1992 dated 21.10.1992 (Annexure A/21) is also disputed. On bare perusal of Annexure A/21, it is gathered that four persons, namely, R.S. Tiwari, R.S. Thakur, M.M. Dhimole and R.S. Romar have signed as the representatives of the Union on behalf of SPM Employees Union. The SPM Employees Union was not party to the reference when the matter was referred to the Tribunal and it was respondent No. 1 i.e. General Secretary Co-ordination Committee of Security Paper Mill Union which was party in the reference. Since there is a factual dispute in regard to the authenticity of the persons who signed the said settlement (Annexure A/21), while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in a writ of certiorari, such a disputed document having nexus with the disputed question of facts cannot be taken into consideration. Apart from this, since the matter was referred to the Tribunal in the year 1986 and it was pending before the Tribunal, no fresh settlement could have been arrived at, as there is a bar under Section 33(1)(a) of the Act. For better understanding, it would be condign to quote Section 33(1)(a) of the Act which reads as under:
33. Conditions of service, etc., to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings. (1) During the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a conciliation officer or a Board of any proceeding before [an arbitrator or] a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, no employer shall, -
(a) in regard to any matter connected with the dispute, alter, to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the commencement of such proceeding; or
(b) xxx xxx xxxx
Save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending.
Nowhere it has been gathered nor it has been submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that any express permission in writing from the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal before whom the proceeding was pending, was obtained. Thus, the view of this Court is that even if such a settlement dated 21.10.1992 (Annexure A/21) was arrived at, it was absolutely in contravention and dehors to the provision of Section 33(1)(a) of the Act and thus for all practical purposes the said settlement has no sanctity in the eye of law.
16. It would be germane to mention here that according to Rule 58 of the Rules of 1957, if a settlement is to be arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings or otherwise it should be in form 'H'. Apart from the employer, it should be signed on behalf of the workman by any officer of a Trade Union of workmen or at least 5 representatives of the workmen duly authorized in this behalf at a meeting of the workmen held for the purpose. On going through the settlement Annexure A/21, nowhere it is gathered that it has been either signed by President or Secretary of any Officer of a trade union of the workman. Whether SPM employees union is a trade union or not, there is nothing on record. It is not clear that in which capacity the persons who have signed on behalf of the Union have signed the said settlement. Their designation is also not mentioned in the said settlement. If these persons have signed in the representative capacity of the workmen, there number should be not less than five, according to Rule 58(2)(b) of the Rules of 1957, further, there is nothing on record in order to demonstrate that these four persons were authorized in the meeting of the workmen held for that purpose. There is no pleading of petitioner in that regard.
17. The language used in Section 33(1)(a) of the Act as well as Rule 58(1)(2)(a) of the Rules of 1957 is clear and each word is having its own meaning. It is a duty of this Court to give full effect to the language used by the legislator and this Court has no power either to give a rider or narrower meaning than the literal one, unless the other provisions of the Act or Rules compel this Court to give such other meaning. Hardship and inconvenience cannot alter the meaning of the language employed by the Legislature if such meaning is clear on the face of the statute or the rules. Admittedly, this settlement has not been arrived at between the Management and the respondent No. 1 i.e. General Secretary, Co-ordination Committee of Security Paper Mill Union. Thus for this another reason the said settlement/scheme dated 21.10.1992 (Annexure A/21) of 1992 has no sanctity in the eye of law.
18. For another reasons, the said settlement cannot be said to be a settlement in the eye of law because for arriving at a settlement, the condition precedent is that there should be a demand by the Union, a reply should be filed by the Management, negotiation should take place and thereafter the settlement is to be signed by the employer and in the case of workmen by an officer of the trade union. In the ease of a conciliation settlement, the conciliation officer is obliged to send a report to the Central Government together with the copy of the settlement signed by the parties to the dispute [in that regard the foot note of Form 'H' prescribed under Rule 58 may be seen] in case of a mutual settlement, parties to the settlement shall jointly send a copy thereof to the Central Government, the Chief Labour Commissioner, Regional Labour Commissioner and Assistant Labour Commissioner. On going through Annexure A/1, the settlement, nowhere it is gathered that it was ever forwarded to either to Central Government or other officers as required under Rule 58. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner did not assail the award of the Tribunal on its merit. The entire endeavour which was putforth by him is in regard to the settlement dated 21.10.1992 (Annexure A/21) which I have already held hereinabove that it has no sanctity in the eye of law.
19. The Tribunal on the basis of evidence adduced on behalf the Management and the Union has arrived at pure finding of fact that the consent for settlement dated 14.12.1987 was not given on account of free consent on behalf of the employees. It was given because the workmen were harassed, they were suspended and were also charge sheeted and therefore on account of coercive measure and by terrorizing the employees, the said settlement dated 14.12.1987 was arrived at. The Tribunal further came to hold that since the matter was already referred to the Tribunal and the same was received in the Tribunal on 15.5.1986, no such settlement could have been arrived. On account of giving notice dated 15.3.1985 the demand of incentive bonus was stopped by the Management. By taking into consideration all these facts which have come on record on the basis of the evidence placed on record by the parties before the Tribunal, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the notice date 15.3.1985 is illegal and rightly it was set aside.
20. After giving my entire endeavour to find out any fault from any angle of the award, I failed to find the same and thus I have no option except to extend my stamp of approval to the reasonings assigned by the Tribunal and I accordingly do so.
21. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 5,000/-, if pre-certified.