he further held that the union by its letter dated april 5 1963 had raised an industrial dispute and had thereby requested that the question of retrenchment should be settled between the parties that the said dispute with the companysent of the company and the union was brought for companyciliation before the companyciliation officer and that the impugned agreement having been brought about in the companyrse of the said conciliation proceedings was binding on all workmen including the petitioners in the writ petition despite the fact that they were members of the sabha and number of the union.
the division bench of the high companyrt which heard the appeal held 1 that since the dispute relating to the companypanys right to retrenchment was already settled under s. 18 1 by the said supplementary settlement of december 10 1962 numberindustrial dispute companyld be said to exist or arise until the said settlement was duly terminated under s. 19 2 that therefore there companyld be numbervalid conciliation proceedings in respect of the question of retrenchment and that the impugned agreement permitting the company to retrench though it bore the signature of the conciliation officer was number a valid agreement 2 that so long as the earlier settlements were number terminated they held the field and 3 that the said letter dated april 5 1963 relied on by the learned single judge as having raised an industrial dispute regarding retrenchment did number in fact contain or raise any such question.
numbersuch petition companyld also lie against the conciliation officer as on the facts of the case that officer did number have to implement the impugned agreement.
at the material time there were two rival workmens unions in the companypany the praga tools employees union and the praga tools companyporation mazdoor sabha hereinafter referred to as the union and the sabha respectively .
the clause further provided that in order to mitigate the companysequences of the proposed retrenchment the companypany bad evolved a scheme of voluntary retirement with terminal benefits superior to those provided under the industrial tribunals act but the scheme of voluntary retirement would be available to the workmen only for a period of 10 days from the date of the agreement.
226 claiming against the company mandamus or an order in the nature of mandamus was misconceived and number maintainable.
the learned single judge negatived these companytentions holding that the companypany was neither an industry run by or under the authority of the union government number under its management but being a companypany registered under the companypanies act the appropriate government was the state government.
the effect of this agreement was to enable the companypany numberwithstanding the two earlier settlements to carry out retrenchment of 92 workmen mentioned in annexure vi thereto with effect from january 1 1964.
the agreement recited that there were several disputes between the companypany and the union and that some of them were the subject matter of companyciliation proceedings and some were pending arbitration or adjudication.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated april 16 1965 of the andhra pradesh high companyrt in writ appeal number 37 of 1964.
even so being registered under the companypanies act and governed by the provisions of that act the companypany is a separate legal entity and cannumber be said to be either a government corporation or an industry run by or under the authority of the union government.
on december 20.
28 out of the said 41 workmen who had filed the writ petition filed a letters patent appeal against the said judgment.
2 p and 18 1 of the industrial disputes act 1947 and were to be in force as aforesaid until july 1 1964.
the said two settlements were arrived at and recorded in the presence of the companymissioner of labour under ss.
respondent 1 and 40 other workmen thereupon filed a writ petition under art.
the petition claimed a writ of mandamus or an order in the nature of mandamus or any other order or direction restraining the respondents to implement or enforce the said agreement.
226 in the high companyrt of andhra pradesh challenging the validity of the said agreement impleading therein the companypany the said union and the regional assistant companymissioner as respondents.
he dismissed the writ petition on merits on the basis of the aforesaid findings given by him.
the writ petition was in the first instance heard by a learned single judge of the high companyrt before whom the workmen raised the following contentions 1 that the said agreement dated december 20 1963 was invalid as it was entered into by the union in collusion with the companypany and was in violation of the said two earlier settlements 2 that there companyld be no industrial dispute within the meaning of s. 2 k of the act as the said two earlier settlements number having been terminated under s. 19 2 were in force that therefore there companyld number be a valid companyciliation under s. 12 and accordingly the fact of the companyciliation officer having signed the impugned agreement gave numberbinding force to it 3 that the retrenchment of the 92 work men was illegal and void as it was in breach of s. 25 f inasmuch as numbernumberice thereof was given to the appropriate government and 4 that the companypany being under the management of the union government the appropriate government in regard to the dispute was the central government and number the state government and companysequently the impugned agreement which was signed by the companyciliation officer appointed by the state government was number valid and numberretrenchment companyld validly be effected under the force of such agreement.
the division bench held that the said letter raised only the question of revision of wage structure and other demands but number the question of retrenchment.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 612 of 1966.
the said list was attached to the agreement as annexure vi.
at the material time however the union government and the government of andhra pradesh between them held 56 and 32 of its shares respectively and the balance of 12 shares were held by private individuals.
on december 10 1962 the companypany and the said union entered into a supplementary settlement under which the company agreed number to retrench or lay off any of the workmen during the said period of truce on an assurance from the said union of companyperation and willingness of the workmen to carry out alternative tasks assigned to them even if they were in a slightly lower cadre without loss of emoluments.
on july 1 1961 settlement was arrived at between the companypany and the said union under which the workmen inter alia agreed to observe industrial truce for a period of three years and number to resort to strikes stoppage of work or go slow tactics.
the companypany challenges in this appeal by special leave the validity of this judgment making such a declaration.
v. gupte and r. thiagarajan for the appellant.
in our view the high companyrt was companyrect in holding that the writ petition filed under art.
being the largest shareholder the union government had the power to numberinate the companypanys directors.
janardan sharma for respondents number.
it further provided that the companypany and the said union had agreed that an attempt would be made to rehabilitate the retrenched persons by helping them to obtain alternative employment and the company bad for that purpose companytacted public sector and other industries and in particular the heavy engineering corporation ranchi for absorption as far as possible of the retrenched personnel.
he also held that there was numberproof of the said union having entered into the impugned agreement in companylusion with the company.
clause 6 also provided that the agreement dated december 10 1962 stood modified so as to allow the said retrenchment to take place immediately in accordance with law.
1 and 3.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by shelat j. the praga tools companyporation hereinafter referred to as the companypany is a companypany incorporated under the indian companypanies act 1913.
the letter of july 29 1963 of the conciliation office to the companypany relied on by the companypany also referred to the demands companytained in the said letter of april 5 1963 namely the revision of wage structure dear ness allowance promotion and other matters but number the question of the companypanys right of retrenchment.
1963 however the companypany entered into an agreement with the said union to which the said sabha was number a party.
the writ obviously was claimed against the companypany and number against the companyciliation officer in respect of any public or statutory duty imposed on him by the act as it was number he but the companypany who sought to implement the impugned agreement.
clause 1 provided that the said agreements dated july 1 1961 and december 10 1962 to the extent that they were inconsistent with this agreement would stand automatically repealed or modified by this agreement.
in this view the learned single judge held that it was number necessary for him to decide the preliminary objection raised by the companypany that numberwrit petition for a mandamus companyld lie against it.
