# THE SUPREME COURT REPORTS STATE OF BIHAR v. KRIPA SHANKAR J AISW AL

- **Citation:** [1961] 2 S.C.R. 1
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1958-07-25
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 1959
- **Bench:** J. L. Kapur, P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. SuBBA RAO a.nd K .. N. WANOHOO
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-supreme-court-reports-state-of-bihar-v-kripa-shankar-j-aisw-al-2216
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Industrial
Dispute-Conciliation proceedings-Unregistered
Union-Settlement with-If binding on management-Industrial
Disputes Act, I947 (I4 of I947), ss. II(a), n(6), I8(3)(a) and (d).
A settlement was arrived at between the management of
:\Iankatha Distillery and the workmen's union before the conciliation officer. The Union was not registered under the Indian
Trade Unions Act on the date of the said settlement. The terms
of the settlement not having been carried out by the management the respondent who was the proprietor, and the manager
of the said distillery were prosecuted and were convicted by the
Magistrate. The Sessions Court, on appeal by the respondent,
confirmed the Magistrate's order. On an appeal to the Patna
High Court by the respondent the High Court set aside the
order of conviction and acquitted the respondent holding that
there was no recognised union and that because the conciliation
officer had visited the Distillery without giving a reasonable
notice, on 18-3-1954 there could be no ag_reement between
the proprietor en one side and the workmen as a whole on the
other on the date and it was wrong to suppose that because
some workmen had signed th.e settlement that it bound all the
workmen.
-
Held, that for a dispute to constitute an industrial dispute
it is not a requisite condition that it should be sponsored by a
recognised union or that all the workmen of an industrial
establishment should be parties to it. A settlement arrived at
< in course of ~onciliation proceedings falls within s. 18(3)(a) and
(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such binds all the
workmen though an unregistered union or only some of workmen may have raised the dispute.
The absence of notice under s. n(2) by the Conciliation
Officer does not affect the jurisdiction of the conciliation officer
and its only purpose is to apprise the establishment that the
person who is coming is the conciliation officer and not a stranger. Any contravention of s. 12(6) in not submitting the report
within 14 days may be a breach of duty on the part of the
" conciliation officer ; it does not affect the legality of the proceedings which terminated as provided in s. 20(2) of the Act.
October I4
Slate of B-ihar
v.
Kf'ipa Sha·nkar
Jaiswal
Kapur ].
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961]
Where a fresh settlement is arrived at between the parties
and all disputes are settled, then "public interest does not require that the stale matter should be resuscitated".
Newspapers Limited, Allahabad v. Stale Industrial Tribunal,
Uttar Pradesh, [1960] 2 L.L.J. 37, referred to.
Andheri Maro! Kurla Bus Service v. The State of Bombay,
A.LR. [1959] S.C. 841 and Stale of Bihar v. Hiralal Kejrilal,
[1960] l S.C.R. 726, approved.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 83 of 1959.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 25,
1958, of the Patna High Court in Criminal Revisions
Nos. 593 and 594 of 1958 arising out of the judgment
and order dated March 3, 1958, of the Additional
Se8sions Judge, Monghyr, in Criminal Appeal No. 286
of 1956.
D. P. Singh and R. H. Dhebar, for the appellant.
G. P. Lal, for the respondent.
1960. Octoher 14.
The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
KAPUR J.-This is an appeal brought in pursuance
of a certificate under art. 134(l)(c) of the Constitution
against the judgment and order. of acquittal of the
High Court of Patna.
There were certain disputes between the workmen
and the Management of Mankatha Distillery of which
the proprietor is the respondent. On November 23,
1953, a petition was submitted on behalf of the workmen of the Distillery to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bhagalpur, which was signed by one Banarsi
Choudhuri on behalf of himself and for and on behalf
of the workmen of the Distillery. In this petition,
certain grievances of the workmen were set out. Conciliation proceedings were started, and there was an
agreement on December 5, 1953, which the High
Court has described as • some sort of agreement '.
On January 12, 1

## Text

THE SUPREME COURT REPORTS
STATE OF BIHAR
v.
KRIPA SHANKAR J AISW AL
(J. L. KAPUR, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR,
K. SuBBA RAO a.nd K .. N. WANOHOO, JJ.)
Industrial
Dispute-Conciliation proceedings-Unregistered
Union-Settlement with-If binding on management-Industrial
Disputes Act, I947 (I4 of I947), ss. II(a), n(6), I8(3)(a) and (d).
A settlement was arrived at between the management of
:\Iankatha Distillery and the workmen's union before the conciliation officer. The Union was not registered under the Indian
Trade Unions Act on the date of the said settlement. The terms
of the settlement not having been carried out by the management the respondent who was the proprietor, and the manager
of the said distillery were prosecuted and were convicted by the
Magistrate. The Sessions Court, on appeal by the respondent,
confirmed the Magistrate's order. On an appeal to the Patna
High Court by the respondent the High Court set aside the
order of conviction and acquitted the respondent holding that
there was no recognised union and that because the conciliation
officer had visited the Distillery without giving a reasonable
notice, on 18-3-1954 there could be no ag_reement between
the proprietor en one side and the workmen as a whole on the
other on the date and it was wrong to suppose that because
some workmen had signed th.e settlement that it bound all the
workmen.
-
Held, that for a dispute to constitute an industrial dispute
it is not a requisite condition that it should be sponsored by a
recognised union or that all the workmen of an industrial
establishment should be parties to it. A settlement arrived at
< in course of ~onciliation proceedings falls within s. 18(3)(a) and
(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such binds all the
workmen though an unregistered union or only some of workmen may have raised the dispute.
The absence of notice under s. n(2) by the Conciliation
Officer does not affect the jurisdiction of the conciliation officer
and its only purpose is to apprise the establishment that the
person who is coming is the conciliation officer and not a stranger. Any contravention of s. 12(6) in not submitting the report
within 14 days may be a breach of duty on the part of the
" conciliation officer ; it does not affect the legality of the proceedings which terminated as provided in s. 20(2) of the Act.
October I4
Slate of B-ihar
v.
Kf'ipa Sha·nkar
Jaiswal
Kapur ].
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961]
Where a fresh settlement is arrived at between the parties
and all disputes are settled, then "public interest does not require that the stale matter should be resuscitated".
Newspapers Limited, Allahabad v. Stale Industrial Tribunal,
Uttar Pradesh, [1960] 2 L.L.J. 37, referred to.
Andheri Maro! Kurla Bus Service v. The State of Bombay,
A.LR. [1959] S.C. 841 and Stale of Bihar v. Hiralal Kejrilal,
[1960] l S.C.R. 726, approved.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 83 of 1959.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 25,
1958, of the Patna High Court in Criminal Revisions
Nos. 593 and 594 of 1958 arising out of the judgment
and order dated March 3, 1958, of the Additional
Se8sions Judge, Monghyr, in Criminal Appeal No. 286
of 1956.
D. P. Singh and R. H. Dhebar, for the appellant.
G. P. Lal, for the respondent.
1960. Octoher 14.
The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
KAPUR J.-This is an appeal brought in pursuance
of a certificate under art. 134(l)(c) of the Constitution
against the judgment and order. of acquittal of the
High Court of Patna.
There were certain disputes between the workmen
and the Management of Mankatha Distillery of which
the proprietor is the respondent. On November 23,
1953, a petition was submitted on behalf of the workmen of the Distillery to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bhagalpur, which was signed by one Banarsi
Choudhuri on behalf of himself and for and on behalf
of the workmen of the Distillery. In this petition,
certain grievances of the workmen were set out. Conciliation proceedings were started, and there was an
agreement on December 5, 1953, which the High
Court has described as • some sort of agreement '.
On January 12, 1954, an application was made for
the registration of the Union of the workmen of the
Distillery under the Indian Trade Unions Act, and
the same was registered on March 23, 1954, under the
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
3
/
name and style of Mankatha Distillery l\fazdoor Pan-
'
cha.yat. The Distillery was closed and the workmen
were discharged, and thereafter on February 19, 1954,
the General Secretary of the Mankatha Distillery
Mazdoor Panchayat, even though it was not registered at the time, sent a letter to the Management, protesting against the discharge of the workmen without
payment of compensation and objecting to the intention of the employers to re-start the factory after
employing other workmeq. It was also stated therein
that the workers who had been discharged, ·had been
working for some years and a list of such workmen
was attached to the letter. The following portion
of the letter is relevant for the purposes of this
appeal:-
•
" All the persons, named below, shall work in the
factory in legal manner, on monthly salary on permanent basis. It is not only hoped, rather fully believed
that you would consider the above facts and gladly
accept the same.
On getting a stisfactory reply, all the workers,
who had been working in your factory since years,
would report themselves to duty and work according
to your orders ".
Although it is addressed to the proprietors of the Distillery, it seems to have been sent to the Assistant
Commissioner of La.hour, Bhagalpur, where it was
received on February 25, 1954. The following endorsements were made on this letter :-
" Di~cussed with you. The management is requested to attend conciliation proceeding on 10th
March, 1954, at 11 a.m. The Union is also informed
accordingly ".
Another petition dated March 5, 1954, was sent by the
General Secretary of the Distillery Mazdoor Panchayat
to the Assistant "Labour Commissioner, in which the
names of a.II the persons who had been freshly employed by the proprietors, were mentioned and it was .
prayed that those who were discharged at the time of
the closing of the factory, may be reinstated and wages
pa.id, and a request was made to the Assistant Labour
Commissioner to visit and see the situation for himself
1960
State of Bihar
v.
]( ripa 5 /iankar
Jaiswal
Kapur .f.
State of B1'.har
v.
Kripa Shankar
]aiswal
Kapur ].
4
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961)
and get the workmen reinstated. The order on this
petition was :-
"The parties have been called to-morrow in my
office for conciliation. The result of the proceeding
may be awaited."
On March 18, 1954, a settlement was arrived at between the management and the workers which is signed by the Conciliation Officer appointed under s. 4 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947)
(hereinafter termed, for the sake of brevity, the. Act).
This document was signed by the proprietor and the
manager of the Distillery and by Banarsi Choudhuri,
General Secretary of the Workers' Panchayat and
also by six other members of the Panchayat who
were evidently the members of the Executive Committee of the Panchayat. The terms of the settlement
were as follows :
" I. It is agreed that the workers named in
Schedule " A" shall be taken to jobs without break in
their services.
2. The new hands appointed after the closure of
the factory shall be discharged.
3. .If three shifts will start and any other increased
opportunity of employment will be available in the
factory, the management shall employ only those
workers who are left to-day and who had worked
in August 1953 and September 1953 in order of
seniority.
4.
Shri Banarsi Choudhry, Balmiki Singh, Bhaso
Singh and Kaltu (?) Singh are accused in a 6ase pending before the Court at Monghyr. The management
agrees that if they will be acquitted from the court,
they will be given jobs.
5.
All the workers will be put in permanent basis
as they were previously. The order putting them in
the temporary basis after the opening of the Mill(?)
is cancelled.
6.
The arrears will be paid on monthly basis as
before instead of weekly basis as at present after the
re-opening of the factory.
7. The grievances raised by the workers and
covered by the agreement dated the 5th December,
••
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
5
1953, will be decided by the La.hour Commissioner
Biha.r, Pa.tna. a.nd his decision sha.11 be a.ccepta.ble to
and final for the parties.
8. The w<.irk of the factory will be resumed immediately.
9.
The workers will continue to have all the
benefits a.nd privileges which a.re gua.ra.nteed by la.w
or usa.ge a.nd custom.
_
10. The workers will not be victimised for their
Trade Union activities".
The prosecution ca.se is that the terms of the settlement were not carried out in that the old workmen
were not re-employed and the newly employed
workmen were not discharged. Thereupon, the respondent a.nd the manager of the Distillery, one Ram
Nara.in La.I were prosecuted on a complaint filed by
the Labour Superintendent, Mr. L. D. Singh, after
sanction of the Government of Bihar had been
obtained. Both the accused persons were convicted
•and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 150 each or, in default,
one month's simple imprisonment.
The learned
Magistrate held that there was a.n industrial dispute
within the meaning of the Act, and that the conciliation settlement dated March 18, 1954, was a valid
settlement and the respondent failed to implement
the first term bf the settlement. Against this order,
an a.ppea.l was taken to the Se~sions Court and the
Third Addi. Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. He
confirmed the findings of the learned Magistrate.
Against this order of the Sessions Judge, an appeal
was taken to the High Court by the respondent only,
and the High Court set aside the order of conviction
and acquitted the accused. It held that there was no
recognised Union, though there was "some kind of a
vague Union" existing, and that because the Conciliation Officer had visited the Distillery without giving
a reasonable notice, the " decision of the Conciliation
Officer on 18-3-1954, must, therefore, be deemed to be
without jurisdiction", and that there was no agreement arrived at between the proprietor on one side
and the "labourers" as a whole on the other, and" it
~ is preposterous to suppose that because some labourers
Ig6o
Slate of Bihar
v.
K•ipa Shankar
Jaiswal
Kapur ].
(
Staie of Bihar
v.
Kripa Shankar
jaiswal
Kapur ].
6
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961]
had signed the settlement that it bound all the labourers. It seems to me that there is a serious defect in
this settlement which is described as a decision of the
Conciliation Officer dated 18-3-1954 ". On the ground,
therefore, that the settlement was not a settlement
which was binding on the respondent, the conviction
was set aside.
It would be an erroneous view if it were said that
for a dispute to constitute an industrial di13pute it is a
requisite condition that it should be sponsored by a
recognised union or that all the workmen of an industrial establishment should be parties to it. A dispute
becomes an industrial dispute even where it is sponsored by a union which is not registered as in the
instant case or where the dispute raised is by some
only of the workmen .because in either case the matter
falls within s. 18(3)(a) and (d) of the Act. See also
Newspapers Limited, Allahabad v. The State Industrial Tribunal, Uttar Pradesh (1). The settement of
March 18, 1954, arrived at during the conciliation·
proceedings was signed by the General Secretary and
members of the executive committee of the Union
though it was unregistered at the time.
We cannot
therefore give our accord to t.he decision that the
settlement of March 18, 1954, was not a settlement
binding between the parties.
The scope and effe.ot of s. 11(2) was raised before us
and it was argued that because the conciliation officer
did not give any reasonable notice before he came to
. t.he Distillery on March 18, 1954, the ·settlement was
not a legal settlement and consequently was not binding on the parties and its breach could not fa.II within
the penal consequences of s. 29 of the Act.
Now,
s. 11(2) provides:-
"A conciliation officer or a member of a Board or
Court or the presiding officer of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal may for the purpose of
inquiry into any existing or apprehended industrial
dispute, after giving reasonable notice, enter the premises occupied by any establishment to which the
dispute relates ".
(1) [19fo) 2 L.L.J. 37 at 38 ..
• •
r
'
r
2 S.C.R.. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
7
Sectfon 11 only deals with the procedure and powers
of the conciliation officers and sub-section 2 autho·
rises the conciliation officer to enter . the premises
occupied by any establishment to which the dispute
relates after giving a reasonable notice.
This notice
is only' for "the purpose of entering the premises to
make an enquiry into any existing industrial dispute
or .an apprehended industrial dispute, and 'is merely
to apprise the establishment that it is the conciliation
officer who is coming aud not an absolute stranger
who has no connection at all with the machinery set
up for the purposes of the Act.
The absence of a
notice under s. 11(2) therefore does not affect the
jurisdiction of the Conciliation Officer.
As to what the conciliation officer can and should
do, is contained in s. 12 of the Act. Sub-section I
empowers the conciliation officer to hold concilia.tion
proceedings in the case of a public utility service after
notice under s. 22 whereby a mandatq_ry duty .is cast
upon him to do so, and in other disputes it is his discretion to hold conciliation proceedings·in the prescribed manner.
Under sub-s. (2) he has to investigate
without delay the dispute in all matters affecting the.
merits of the dispute, and he can do such things as he
thinks necessary for inducing the parties to come to a
fa.ir and· amicable settlement. Sub-section (3) provides
that if a settJement of the dispute is arrived at, a
report thereof shall be sent to the.appropriate Government, and sub.a. (4) also provides for the sending of a
similar report to the appropriate Government if no
settlement is arrived at. Sub-s. (6) deals with the
powers of the Government when-a report is received
as to the non-settlement of the dispute, and sub-s. (6)
which was relied upon provides :-
S. 12(6) " A report under this section shall be
submitted within fourteen days of the commencement
of the conciliation proceedings or within such shorter
period as may be fixed by the appropriate Governnlent.
Provided that the time for the submission of the
report may be extended by such period as may be
a.greed upon in writing by all the parties to the dispute."
State of Bihar
v.
ffripa Shankar
]aiswal
Kapur ].
z960
State of Bihar
v.
Kripa Shankar
jaiswal
Kapur ].
8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961~
It was argued that because the report had not been
sent to the Government within fourteen days of the
commencement of the conciliation proceedings, the
settlement arrived at was invalid and was not binding.
This contention must be repelled because any
contravention of s. 12(6) may be a breach of duty on
the part of the conciliation officer; that' does not
affect the legality of the proceedings which terminated
as provided in s. 20(2) of the Act. It was so held by
this Court in Andheri Marol Kurla Bus Service v. The
State of Bombay('). It cannot be said, therefore, that
the settlement which was arrived at on March 18,
1954, was not a legal settlement and that a breach of
it would not attract the penal provisions of s. 29 of
the Act.
After the case was decided by the Judicial Magistrate the parties arrived at a fresh settlement on
October ~. 1956, which recited:
" That thi~ settlement ma.de this day the 6th
October,' 1956, at Patna, settles a.II the pending grievances a.nd/qrA.emands of workmen whatsoever".
As a result of this out of the discharged workmen 25,
whose names a.re given in Appendix A attached to
the compromise, were reinstated with efi"E!ct from
October 8, 1956. The claim with regard to the other
discharged workmen was withdrawn. This settlement
was accepted by the Industrial Tribunal by an order
dated October 10, 1956. This shows that a.II disputes
between the parties have been settled and workmen
have been reinstated. In view of this in the words of
Subba. Rao, J., in the State of Bihar v. Hiralal Kejrilal (") " public interest does not require that the stale
matter should be resuscitated ". Therefore we do not
t-hink it necessary to interfere under a.rt. 136 with the
order of the High Court.
The appeal is therefore dismissed.
Appeal di11missed.
(1) (1959) Supp. • S.C.R. 734.
(•) (1g6o] 1 S.C.R. i•26, 736.