Naresh Kumar Bansal vs G.S. Kalra And Anr.
1993 Latest Caselaw 18 Del

JUDGMENT

P.N. Nag, J.

(1) The petitioner has challenged the award of the Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal, Delhi dated 4th February, 1988, whereby the Labour Court has rejected the claim of the workman/petitioner and has decided the reference against him. The services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from 27th July, 1972 by the respondent while working as Cashier-cum-Go down Keeper in Shahdara Branch. The Central Government made the following reference to the Labour Court.'- "WHETHER the action of the management of Central Bank of India, New Delhi in terminating the services of Shri N.k.Bansal, Assistant Cashier-cum-Go down Keeper in Shahdar Branch of the said Bank with effect from 27.7.1972 is justificed? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled?"

(2) The main ground on the basis of which the petitioner had challenged the Award was that be was neither a member of the Central Bank Employees Union nor had he given any authority to the said Union or anybody else to reach settlement dated 1.6.1977 on his behalf and the settlement reached between the Central Government Industrial Tribunal and the Management is not binding on him. On the basis of the settlement. No Dispute Award was given on 29th December, 1977 in I.D.No.58/77, which did not bind him. He had also challenged the Award on merit that he was senior most employee out of the lot of temporary employees and his juniors have been reinstated. The most material point of controversy is when the petitioner was neither the member of the Central Bank Employees Union nor had he authorised the said Union to represent his case before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal and whether the said settlement not binding on him.

(3) The petition was admitted by this Court on 31st October, 1988. Inspite of the service nobody has come forward on behalf of the respondents to defend the case nor any counter affidavit has been filed. In the absence of the counter affidavit, the averments made by the petitioner has to be accepted as correct, as the averments remain unrebutted.

(4) In these facts and circumstances when the petitioner was neither a member of the Union nor bad he authorised the said Union to represent his case, the question arises for consideration is whether the settlement reached between the Union and the Management is binding under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Admittedly, the settlement has been arrived at by an agreement between the employer and the management, otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceedings and the case is covered under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(5) In Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. The Workmen, , it was held as under:- "WHERE"the workmen are represented by a recognised Union, the settlement may be arrived at between the employer and the Union. If there is a recognised Union of the workmen and the Constitution of the Union provides that any of its office-bearers can enter into a settlement with the Management on behalf of the union and its members, a settlement- may be arrived at between the employer and such office bearer or bearers. But, where the Constitution does not so provide specifically, the office bearer or bearers who wish to enter into a settlement with the employer should have the necessary authorisation by the executive committee of the Union or by the workmen."

(6) In M/s.Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. The workmen employed under M/s.Tara Chemicals Ltd.,AIR 1978 S.C.823, it has been again laid down by the Supreme Court that settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and the workman otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceedings is binding only on the parties to the agreement.

(7) Since the petitioner was neither a member of the Union nor he bad authorised the said Union to represent his case nor was a party to the settlement, the settlement is not binding on him. The Labor Court has given the Award on the ground that the settlement is binding but the version of the workmen is that be was not the member of the Union nor has he authorised the Union has been disbelieved. However, this finding has been challenged by Mr.Inderbir Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that such a finding is based on no evidence.

(8) In Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer, , the Supreme Court has held:- "WHERE a disciplinary enquiry affects the livelihood and is likely to cast a stigma and it has to be held in accordance with the principles of natural justice, the minimum expectation is that the report must be a reasoned one. The Court then may not enter into the adequacy or sufficiency of evidence."

(9) The enquiry officer must apply his mind to the evidence and discuss it in order to arrive at a conclusion. In the present case, after having perused the Award, I find that the Labor Court while awarding award of "No Dispute" on the basis of the settlement has disbelieved the version of the workman that he did not know what was the proceedings going on before the two Tribunals nor was he a member of the Union nor was he represented by the Union. According to him, this, itself indicates that he was not interested in his reinstatement in service and that in fact he was a member of the Union and was represented by the Union. No doubt such a finding has been given by the Labour Court, but be has not discussed the evidence on the basis of which he has come to the aforementioned conclusion, which shows his non-application of mind. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar's case (Supra) such a finding cannot be upheld and the matter requires fresh consideration by the Labour Court.

(10) Since the case is unrebutted by the respondents and no record is available with the Court, such a finding can also not be scrutinised by this; Court whether or not such a finding is based on any evidence. But at any rate, as already stated above, it was incumbent upon the Labour Court to scrutinise the evidence and thereafter only the court could come to the conclusion that the petitioner was a member of the Union and was represented by the Union and bad his authority.

(11) In the Tight of what has been discussed above, the impugned award Annexure-A is set side and the Labor Court is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh on merits in accordance with law . In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.