COMMENCEMENT & MODIFICATION OF AWARDS

Group 11
Rituparna Mallick H13097 Sanika Gokhale H13101 Saurav Kumar Das H13105 Sourabh Sanyal H13110 Sreedipto Bhattacharya H13111

WHAT IS AN ‘AWARD’?
‘Award’ means an interim or final determination of any industrial dispute or of any question relating thereto by any Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal or National Tribunal. It also includes arbitration award made under section 10A.

AWARD VS. SETTLEMENT
Award
1. 2. It is a decision of the Arbitrator, Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal. The Arbitrator, Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal resolves the problem hearing the arguments from both sides.

Settlement
1. 2. It is arrived conciliation. as a result of

Both the parties come to a conclusion by mutual agreement, and sign on the Settlement Agreement The Conciliation Officer settles the disputes between the parties in an amicable manner

3.

3.

No mutual consent between the parties. However, the Award consists binding force upon the parties

SECTION 16. FORM OF REPORT OR AWARD
Report of a Board or Court shall be in writing and shall be signed by all the members of the Board or Court Provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent any member of the Board or Court from recording

i.
i.

any minute of dissent from a report
OR from any recommendation made therein.

The award of a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal shall be in writing and shall be signed by its Presiding officer.

SECTION 17: PUBLICATION OF REPORTS AND AWARDS
1. Every report of a Board or Court together with any minute of dissent recorded therewith, every arbitration award and every award of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal shall, within a period of thirty days from the date of its receipt by the appropriate Government, be published in such manner as the appropriate Government thinks fit.

2. Subject to the provisions of section 17A, the award published under sub- section (1) shall be final and shall not be called in question by any Court in any manner whatsoever.

SECTION 17A: COMMENCEMENT OF THE AWARD
1. An award shall become enforceable on the expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication . In case of Labour Court or Tribunal – The Appropriate Government In case of National Tribunal – Central Government

Provided that—
a) b)

Is of opinion, that it will be inexpedient on public grounds affecting national economy or social justice Declare that the award shall not become enforceable on the expiry of the said period of thirty days.

MODIFICATION OF AWARD
2. Where any declaration has been made in relation to an award

Appropriate Government or Central Government may, within 90 days from the date of publication of the award
Make an order rejecting or modifying the award

And shall, on the first available opportunity, lay the award together with a copy of the order before the State Legislature or before Parliament.
Note: Sub-section(2) of s .17 A gives power to the Government to modify or reject an award within stipulated time

DATE OF ENFORCEABILITY [ SECTION 17 A.(3)]
Any award which is Rejected or Modified under sub- section (2)

• Shall become enforceable on the expiry of fifteen days from the date on which it is so laid; And where no order under sub- section (2) is made
• the award shall become enforceable on the expiry of the period of ninety days referred to in sub- section (2).

4. Subject to the provisions of sub- section (1) and sub- section (3) regarding the enforceability of an award, the award shall come into operation with effect from such date as may be specified therein, but where no date is so specified, it shall come into operation on the date when the award becomes enforceable under subsection (1) or sub- section (3), as the case may be.

ON WHOM IT IS BINDING
i. ii. iii. iv. All the parties to the industrial dispute; All other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings as parties to the dispute unless they were so summoned without proper cause; Where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is an employer, his heirs, successors or assignees in respect of the establishments to which the dispute relates. Where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is composed of workmen, all persons who were employed in the establishment or part of the establishment , as the case may be, to which the dispute relates on the date of the dispute & all persons who subsequently become employed in that establishment or part.

BINDING PERIOD
i. ii. iii. An award is binding & will come into operation on the expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication. It will remain in operation for a period of 1 year from the date on which the award becomes enforceable. Government may reduce the said period & fix such periods as it thinks fit. The government may also extend the period of operation by any period not exceeding 1 year at a time but the total period of operation of any award cannot exceed 3 years. From the date on which it comes into operation. Even if period of operation of an award expires, it shall be binding on the parties until 2 months have elapsed from the date on which notice is given by one party bound by the award to the other party intimating its intention to terminate the award. If for any reason the award does not become enforceable, it can never come into operation. The date on which an award comes into operation may or may not be the date on which it becomes enforceable.

iv.

v.

THE SIRSILK LTD. VS GOVERNMENT OF AP
Issue: Conflict between Resolution of Award and settlement

Case Facts i. An order referring certain disputes between the appellant and its workmen was made to the Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh on June 6, 1956. ii. The tribunal sent its award to Government in September, 1957 iii. However, before the Government could publish the award under s. 17, the parties to the dispute came to a settlement iv. On October 1, 1957, a letter was written to Government signed jointly on behalf of the employer and the employees intimating that the dispute, which had been pending before the tribunal, had been settled v. A request was made to Government not to publish the award vi. The Government, however, expressed its inability to withhold the publication of the award citing that Section 17 of the Act was mandatory and the Government was bound to publish the award

WRIT PETITION IN HC
Thereupon the appellants filed writ petitions before the AP High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying that the Government may be directed not to publish the award sent to it by the industrial tribunal. The High Court held that s. 17 was mandatory and it was not open to the High Court to direct the Government not to publish the award when the law enjoined upon it to publish it.

The writ petitions were therefore dismissed.

WRIT PETITION IN SC
The appellants took up the case with the Supreme Court submitting that the publication of the award under section 17 was directory and not mandatory In the alternative, it was contended that even if s. 17 is mandatory some via media had to be found in view of the conflict that would arise between an award published under s. 17 (1) and a settlement which is binding under S. 18(1)

The appellants contended that where there is a settlement which is binding tinder s.18(1) it would be open to the Government not to publish the award in these special circumstance

S.C. DECISION
First contention, that the publication of the award under s. 17 (1) is directory was not accepted. i. Section 17 (1) lays down that every award “shall within a period of thirty days” from the date of its receipt by the appropriate government be published ii. The use of the word "shall" is a pointer to s. 17(1 ) being mandatory By the 1956 amendment of the Act s. 18 (1) was introduced in the Act. i. It provides that a settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workmen otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement ii. In the present case the settlement that was arrived at between the parties to the dispute was signed on October 1, 1957, and as it had not fixed any date for its coming into force, it became operative from October 1, 1957 itself and was binding on the parties to the agreement

Where therefore parties to an industrial dispute have reached a settlement which is binding under s. 18 (1), the dispute between them really comes to an end In such a case it is urged that the settlement arrived at between the parties should be respected and industrial peace should not be allowed to be disturbed by the publication of the award which might be different from the settlement The Supreme court held the opinion that though s. 17 (1) is mandatory and the Government is bound to publish the award received by it from an industrial tribunal, the situation arising in a case like the present was of an exceptional nature and required reconciliation between s. 18 (1) and s. 17 (1) In such a situation the only way to reconcile the two provisions is to withhold the publication of the award, as a binding settlement had already come into force

REMINGTON RAND OF INDIA LTD. V. THE WORKMEN
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/08/1967 BENCH:MITTER, G.K.WANCHOO, K.N. (CJ) CITATION:1968 AIR 224 H. R. Gokhale and D. N. Gupta, for the appellant.

M. K. Ramamurthi, Shyamala Pappu, Vineet Kumar and R. Nagaratnam, for the respondents.

REMINGTON RAND OF INDIA LTD. V. THE WORKMEN
Section 17(1) of the Industrial, Disputes Act, 1947, makes it obligatory on the appropriate Government to publish the award received by it from the Industrial Tribunal However, the provision in the section as to time, that the Government shall publish it within a period of thirty days from the date of its receipt, is merely directory and not mandatory.

The Government received the award on 14th October 1966 and published it in the Gazette on the 15th November 1966 and the award did not cease to be enforceable.
This appeal by the Remington Rand of India Ltd. against their workmen arises out of an award dated 5th October, 1965 made by the Industrial Tribunal, Alleppey published in the Kerala Gazette dated 15th November, 1966.

REMINGTON RAND OF INDIA LTD. V. THE WORKMEN
The first point taken against this award is that it cannot be given effect to as it was published beyond the period fixed in the Act. The notification accompanying the gazette publication stated that Government had received the award on 14th October, 1966.

It was argued by Mr. Gokhale that in terms of s. 17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act the award bad to be published " within a period of thirty days from the date of its receipt by the appropriate Government“
According to learned counsel, the award having reached Government on 14th October, 1966 it should have been published at the latest on 12th November, 1966 as s. 17 of the Act was mandatory.

REMINGTON RAND OF INDIA LTD. V. THE WORKMEN sub-s. (2) of s. 17 according to which it is only the award published under sub-s. (1) of s. 17 is final and cannot be called in question by any court in any manner. Under sub-s. (1) of s. 17-A an award becomes enforceable on the expiry of thirty days from the date of its publication under s. 17 and under sub-s. (3) of s. 19 an award is to remain in operation for a period of one year from the date on which the award becomes enforceable under s. 17-A It was argued that the limits of time mentioned in the sections were mandatory and not directory and if an award was published beyond the period of thirty days, in contravention of s. 17(1) it could not be given effect to.

REMINGTON RAND OF INDIA LTD. V. THE WORKMEN
REFERENCE I : Erumeli Estate v. Industrial Tribunal There the question directly arose as to whether non-publication of the period mentioned in S. 17 (1)invalidated the award

The learned Judge observed that he was not inclined to accept that contention although it was highly desirable that the award should be published within the time mentioned.
REFERENCE II: The State of Uttar Pradesh & Others v. Babu Ram Upadhya

There is an elaborate discussion as to whether the use of the word "shall" in A Statute made the provision mandatory.
"For ascertaining the real intention of the Legislature the Court may consider inter alia, the nature and the design of the statute, and the consequences which would follow from construing it One way or the other, the impact of other provisions whereby the necessity of complying with the provisions in question is avoided, the circumstances, namely, that the statute provides for a contingency of the non- compliance with the provisions, the fact that the noncompliance with the provisions is or is not visited by some penalty, the serious or trivial consequences that flow therefrom, and, above all, whether the object of the legislation will be defeated or furthered.”

REMINGTON RAND OF INDIA LTD. V. THE WORKMEN
Time in s. 17(1) is merely directory and not mandatory.
Section 17(1) makes it obligatory on the Government to publish the award The limit of time has been fixed as showing that the publication of the award ought not to be held up the fixation of the period of 30 days mentioned therein does not mean that the publication beyond that time will render the award invalid.

It is not difficult to think of circumstances when the publication of the award within thirty days may not be possible.
If we were to hold that the award would therefore be rendered invalid, it would be attaching undue importance to a provision not in the mind of the legislature. The non-publication of the award within the period of thirty days does not entail any penalty

THANK YOU