http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: ANDHERI MAROL KURLA BUS SERVICE& ANOTHER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF BOMBAY

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/04/1959

BENCH: KAPUR, J.L. BENCH: KAPUR, J.L. IMAM, SYED JAFFER

CITATION:  1959 AIR  841            1959 SCR  Supl. (2) 734  CITATOR INFO :  R          1961 SC 304  (9)

ACT: Industrial  Dispute-Conciliation  Proceedings-Pendency   of- Whether  terminate on expiry of 14 days-lndustrial  Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV Of 1947) ss. 12(6), 20(2), 31(1) and 33(1).

HEADNOTE: Conciliation proceedings were started in January. 1952  with respect  to  some  disputes  between  appellant  1  and  its workmen.  On May 9, 1952, the Union and on June 2, 1952, the appellant  1 indicated to the Conciliation Officer that  the negotiations  had  failed.  In the meantime  on  March  ˜I8, 1952, the appellant 1 dismissed (1)  I.L.R. 1947 All.  155. 735 one  of  its workmen.  The two appellants and  three  others were prosecuted under s. 31 Of the Industrial Disputes  Act, 1947, for a breach of s. 33 for dismissing a workman  during the   pendency   of  the  conciliation   proceedings.    The appellants contended that since s. 12(6) required the report of  the conciliation proceedings to be submitted  within  14 days  of  the  commencement  thereof,  the  proceedings  had terminated  on the expiry of the 14 days and  the  dismissal was, therefore, not during the pendency of the  conciliation proceedings. Held  that, in cases where no settlement was arrived at  the conciliation  proceedings terminated when the report of  the Conciliation   Officer  was  received  by  the   appropriate Government  and  not  on  the expiry of  14  days  from  the commencement  of  the  proceedings.   The  commencement  and termination  of conciliation proceedings were determined  by S. 20 and not by s. 12(6).  The dismissal of the workman was during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings and  the appellants were guilty under s. 31(1) of the Act. Workers  of the Industry Colliery, Dhanbad v. Management  Of the Industry Colliery, [1953] S.C.R. 428 ; Colliery  Mazdoor Congress,  Asansol  v.  New Beerbhoom Coal  Co.  Ltd.,  1952 L.A.C. 219, applied.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 46  of 1957. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated the  February 4, 1955, of the Bombay High Court in  Criminal Appeal  No.  1256 of 1954, arising out of the  judgment  and order   dated  June  19,  1954,  of  the  Chief   Presidency Magistrate,  Bombay,  in Case No. 176/S  of  1953.  Hardayal Hardy, for the appellants. H. J. Umrigar and B. H. Dhebar, for the respondent. 1959.  April 21.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR,  J.-This  is an appeal by special leave  against  the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay reversing the judgment  of  the Chief Presidency Magistrate,  Bombay,  and thus convicting accused Nos. 1 & 5 under s. 31(1) read  with s.  33(1)  of  the Industrial Disputes  Act  (XIV  of  1947) (hereinafter called the Act) and sentencing accused No. 1 to a fine of Rs. 250 and accused No. 5 to a fine of Rs. 50, 736 The  appellants are the Andheri Marol Kurla Bus Service  who was  accused No. 1 (now appellant No. 1) and its Manager  H. M.  Khan who was accused No. 5 (now appellant No. 2).   Some disputes arose between the appellant No. 1 and its  workmen. On December 13, 1951, the Conciliation Officer wrote to  the appellant No. I and enclosed the demands of the Union  which were  dated  August  9, 1951.  On  December  31,  1951,  the appellant No. I was asked to appear before the  Conciliation Officer   on  January  9,  1952,  and  after   getting   one adjournment   the  appellant  No.  I  appeared  before   the Conciliation  Officer  on January 17, 1952,  and  filed  its Written  Statement and raised various objections.  The  next date  of hearing was January 31, 1952, and  the  proceedings went on till June 2, 1952, when the appellant No. 1 wrote to the Conciliation Officer saying that no useful purpose would be served by holding any further meetings.  On May 9,  1952, the  Union  had also indicated to the  Conciliation  Officer that  the negotiations had failed.  On March 18,  1952,  the appellant  dismissed  Louis  Pereira, a  bus  conductor  and proceedings   were  taken  on  a  complaint   by   Assistant Commissioner  of Labour under s. 33 read with s. 31  of  the Act  against  5 accused persons the two appellants  and  the partners of appellant No. 1. The Chief Presidency Magistrate acquitted all the accused including the appellants and  held that  as  the conciliation proceedings had continued  for  a period  of  more  than 14 days as  from  January  17,  1952, further  proceedings  for  conciliation  were  illegal   and therefore  the accused persons could not be convicted  under s.  31(1)of the Act.  The State took an appeal to  the  High Court and the judgment of acquittal was reversed and of  the accused  persons the two appellants were convicted  and  the others were acquitted.  The two appellants have appealed  by special leave. The  question  for  decision  is  whether  the  conciliation proceedings  could be said to be pending when Louis  Pereira was dismissed.  If the answer is in the affirmative then the appellants  have  been  properly convicted and  if  not  the conviction  must  be  set aside.  Section  31(1)  makes  the contravention of the provision 737 of s. 33 of the Act an offence punishable with  imprisonment for a period which may extend to six months or with fine  or with both.  Section 33(1) pro- K. vides: S.   33(1)  "  During  the  pendency  of  any   conciliation proceedings  before a conciliation officer or a Board or  of any proceeding before a Labour Court or Tribunal or National

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

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 proceedings; or (b)  for   any  misconduct  connected  with   the   dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise,  any workmen concerned in such dispute, save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending ". Therefore the question reduces itself to the meaning of  the words  " pendency of any conciliation proceedings  before  a conciliation officer ". The  argument raised on behalf of the appellant is that  the object  of  conciliation is to get a  settlement  made  with expedition  and  therefore  under  s.  12  the  Conciliation Officer  was bound to make his report within 14 days of  the commencement of the conciliation proceedings or within  such shorter  period fixed by the appropriate  Government.   From this  it  was submitted that as 14 days had  expired  before March  18, 1952, the dismissal could not be said to  be  one within  the words " pendency of conciliation proceedings  ". The   Act  provides  for  commencement  and  conclusion   of conciliation  proceedings  under s. 20 but  the  first  sub- section of s. 20 deals with what are called utility services and  sub-s.  2  of  that section provides  as  to  when  the conciliation  proceedings conclude.  That sub-section is  as follows:- S. 20(1).................................................... (2)  A  conciliation  proceeding shall  be  deemed  to  have concluded- 93 738 (a)  where a settlement is arrived at, when a memorandum  of the settlement is signed by the par ties to the dispute; (b)  where  no settlement is arrived at, when the report  of the  conciliation  officer is received  by  the  appropriate Government  or  when the report of the  Board  is  published under s, 17, as the case may be; or (c)  when  a reference is  made to a  Court,  Labour  Court, Tribunal  or National Tribunal under section 10  during  the pendency of conciliation proceedings ". The  provisions of sub-section 2 apply to  all  conciliation proceedings  whether  in  regard  to  utility  services   or otherwise.   All  conciliation proceedings under  this  sub- section shall be deemed to have concluded in the case  where no   settlement   is  reached,  when  the  report   of   the Conciliation   Officer  is  received  by   the   appropriate Government.   The conciliation proceedings therefore do  not end  when  the  report  under  s.  12(-6)  is  made  by  the Conciliation Officer but when that report is received by the appropriate   Government.    It  was  contended   that   the conciliation  proceedings should be held to  terminate  when the  Conciliation Officer is required under s. 12(6) of  the Act to submit his report but the provisions of the Act above quoted do not support this contention as the termination  of the  conciliation proceedings is deemed to take  place  when the report is received by the appropriate Government.   This is  how  s.  20(2)(b)  was interpreted  in  Workers  of  the Industry  Colliery,  Dhanbad v. Management of  the  Industry Colliery (1). It  was  next  contended that  on  this  interpretation  the conciliation proceedings could be prolonged much beyond what was contemplated by the Act and the termination would depend

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

upon  how  soon  a report is  received  by  the  appropriate Government.    It  is  true  that  s.  12(6)  of   the   Act contemplates   the   submission  of  the   report   by   the Conciliation Officer within 14 days but that does not affect the pendency of the conciliation proceedings and if for some reason the Conciliation Officer delays the submission of his report his action (1)  [1953] S.C.R. 428. 739 may   be  reprehensible  but  that  will  not   affect   the interpretation to be put on s. 20(2)(b) of the Act.  Section 12 lays down the duties of the Conciliation_ officer.  He is required  to bring about settlement between the parties  and must  begin  his  investigation  without  delay  and  if  no settlement is arrived at he is to  submit his report to  the appropriate  Government.  No doubt s. 12  contemplates  that the report should be made and the proceedings closed  within a  fortnight  and  if proceedings are  not  closed  but  are carried  on,  as they were in the present case,  or  if  the Conciliation Officer does not make his report within 14 days he  may  be  guilty  of a breach of  duty  but  in  law  the proceedings   do not automatically come to an  end  after 14 days  but only terminate as provided in s. 20(2)(b)  of  the Act.  Colliery  Mazdoor Congress, Asansol v.  New  Beerbhoom Coal  Co.  Ltd (1).  As the  conciliation  proceedings  were pending  at  the time when Louis Pereira was  dismissed  the appellants  were rightly convicted under s. 31(1) read  with s. 33 of the Act. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Appeal dismissed.