http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: KARNAL LEATHER KARAMCHARI SANGHATAN(REGD.)

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: LIBERTY FOOTWEAR COMPANY (REGD.) & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT31/08/1989

BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) AHMADI, A.M. (J)

CITATION:  1990 AIR  247            1989 SCR  (3)1065  1989 SCC  (4) 448        JT 1989 (3)   537  1989 SCALE  (2)460

ACT:     Industrial  Disputes Act 1947--Sub-section 3 of  Section 10A-Publication   of  the  arbitration  Agreement   in   the Gazette--Whether obligatory or directory and non-publication thereof--Whether  renders the award invalid  and  unenforce- able--Delay  in publication--Effect  of-Industrial  Disputes (Central) Rules 1967--Rule 7.

HEADNOTE:     Respondent No. 1 is a registered partnership firm  which deals  in  leather foot wears at Karnal in  Haryana  and  at other  places under the name and style of "Liberty  Footwear Company". It had an industrial dispute with his workmen; the latters’ Union complaining that the management had terminat- ed  the  services of more than 200 workmen.  The  management asserted that the persons whose services had been terminated were  not  its employees at the material time.  The  dispute having  remained unsealed, the workmen went on strike  as  a result  whereof the management had to lay off certain  work- ers.  The agitation of the workers in front of  the  factory created a law and order problem and the police had to inter- vene in the matter. With a view to bring about a settlement, the official authorities such as Labour Commissioner, Labour and  Public Health Minister and other.  Concerned  officials all came and extended their good officers. They succeeded in their  efforts  and on March 31, 1988, the  parties  entered into  an  agreement containing the terms  of  settlement  of their  dispute. It was agreed between them that a  committee consisting of five persons, two from the management and  two from  the  workmen’s  union, with  the  Deputy  Commissioner Karnal, as the President should be constituted, as  arbitra- tors, to determine the dispute. The Committee gave its award on  29.4.1988  and  11.5.1988 directing  the  management  to reinstate in all 159 workers. The management did not  imple- ment the award by reinstating the workmen but instead  chal- lenged the validity of the award by means of a Writ Petition before  the High Court. The management inter alia  contended before  the  High Court that (i)  the  committee  procedural irregularities;  (ii)  that  the committee  did  not  afford opportunity to the management to produce evidence and  (iii) that  the  arbitration agreement was not  published  in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

official Gazette as required by 1066 Sub-section (3) of Section 10A of the Act and thus the award made without such publication was bad and invalid. The  High Court without going into other contentions accepted the Writ Petition only on the ground of non-publication of the agree- ment  in the Gazette. It held that the requirement  of  Sub- section 3 of Section 10A is mandatory and its non-compliance would  vitiate the award. It accordingly directed the  State Government to publish the agreement in the Gazette and  also directed  the committee to determine the dispute afresh  and pass the award after the publication of the agreement.     The  employees’  Union has preferred this  appeal  after obtaining Special Leave. In the meanwhile the management had preferred  Letters Patent Appeal against certain  directions of  the Single Judge of the High Court which is impugned  in this  appeal and the State Government has referred the  dis- pute to the Industrial Tribunal, Ambala, under section 10(1) of the Act for adjudication. Disposing of the appeal with directions this Court,     HELD:  At  both the places viz, in Sub-section  (3)  and Rule 7 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1967,  it may be noted that the legislature has used the word "shall". In the context in which the word has been, there is,  little doubt  about  obligation  to publish the  agreement  in  the official Gazette. [1075F]     It  is  now well established that the  wordings  of  any provision are not determinative as to whether it is absolute or  directory. Even the absence of penal provision for  non- compliance  does  not lead to an inference that it  is  only directory. The Court, therefore, must carefully get into the underlying  idea  and ascertain the purpose to  be  achieved notwithstanding the text of the provision. [i076D]     The Act seeks to achieve social justice on the basis  of collective bargaining. Collective bargaining is a  technique by, which dispute as to conditions of employment is resolved amicably  by agreement rather than coercion. The dispute  is settled  peacefully  and  voluntarily  although  reluctantly between labour and management. The voluntary arbitration  is a  part of infrastructure of dispensation of justice in  the industrial  adjudication. The arbitrator thus  fails  within the  rainbow  of statutory tribunals when a dispute  is  re- ferred  to  arbitration it is therefore necessary  that  the workers  must  be made aware of the dispute as well  us  the arbitrator whose award would ultimately bind them. They must know what is referred to arbitration, who is their  arbitra- tor, and 1067 what is in store for them. They must have an opportunity  to share their views with each other and if necessary to  place the same before the arbitrator. This is the need for collec- tive  bargaining and there cannot be  collective  bargaining without  involving  the workers. The Union  only  helps  the workers  in  resolving their disputes  with  management  but ultimately it would be for the workers to take decision  and suggest  remedies. The arbitration agreement must  therefore be published before  the  arbitrator  considers  the  merits of   the  dispute. Non-compliance of this requirement  would be fatal to the arbital award. [1076F-1077B]     In  the modern, welfare state, healthy industrial  rela- tions are a matter of paramount importance. In attempting to solve  industrial disputes, industrial adjudication,  there- fore,  should not be delayed. Voluntary arbitration  appears to be the best method for settlement of industrial disputes. [1077G]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

The Court, therefore, gave the following directions:     (i) The State Government shall publish condition No. ’3’ in  the  arbitration  agreement in  the  Government  Gazette within four weeks from to-day; (ii) The agreement containing condition  No. ’3’ stands referred to the Industrial  Tribu- nal,  Haryana  at Ambala for passing  arbitration  award  in accordance  with law (iii) The reference made under  section 10(1) of the Act to Industrial Tribunal is quashed and  (iv) The  management shall withdraw the aforesaid Letters  Patent Appeal  and  the  Writ Petition pending in  the  High  Court within  3  weeks from to-day failing which  the  High  Court shall dispose them of as having become infructuous.  [1078D- F]     Romington  Rand of India Ltd. v. The Workmen,  [1968]  I SCR  164;  Modern Stores v. Krishna das, AIR  1970  NIP  17; Landara  Engineering  and Fondary Works,  Phillaur.  v.  The Punjab  State & Ors., [1969] Lab. I.C. 52; Mineral  Industry Association  v.  The Union of India & Anr., AIR  1971  Delhi 160; Rasbehary Mohanty and Presiding Officer Labour Court  & Anr., [1974] II LLJ Orissa 222 to 226; Workmen of  Woodlands Hotel v. K. Srinivasa Rao, [1972] Vol. 42 F.J.R. 223 at 226; Kathyee Cotton Mills Ltd. v. District Labour Officer & Ors., [1981] 1 LLJ Kerala 417 at 419, referred to.

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDiCTION: Civil Appeal No. 1765  of 1989. 1068     From the Judgment and order dated 1.6.1988 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 4046 of 1988. A.K. Goel for the Appellants.     B.D. Agarwal, V. Ram Swarup, S.K. Bagga, S.R. Srivastava and Ms. Anu Mohala for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     K.  JAGANNATHA  SHETTY, J. This appeal by leave  from  a decision of the single Judge of Punjab & Haryana High  Court raises  a very short but important question of law  relating to the validity of an arbitral award made before  publishing the arbitration agreement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (The ’Act’). The  facts  which give rise to this appeal  may  briefly  be stated thus.     The respondent-1 is a registered partnership firm carry- ing on its trading activities in leather footwears at Karnal and  some other places under the name and style of  ’Liberty Footwear  Company’. It has its head office at Karnal in  the State of Haryana. It had a serious dispute with the workers. The workers’ union complained that the management has  ille- gally  terminated  more  than 200  workers.  The  respondent denied that claim and asserted that the persons whose  serv- ices  were  alleged  to have been terminated  were  not  its employees  at the material time. This dispute  however,  re- mained unsettled and the workers went on strike which took a violent turn. The management had to lay off certain  workers and that added fuel to the fire. The agitation of the  work- ers before the factory premises created law and order  prob- lem  attracting the police to intervene. The Labour  Commis- sioner  and other top officials of the District arrived  and they  initiated  conciliation proceedings. The  then  Labour Minister and the Public Health Minister of the State Govern- ment  were also alerted. They also came and  extended  their good offices to bring about a settlement. They succeeded  in their  efforts. On March 31, 1988, the parties entered  into

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

an  agreement  containing the terms of settlement  of  their dispute.  On  behalf of the management,  the  agreement  was signed by respondents 1, 7 and 8. On behalf of the  workers, it was signed by the President and Secretary of the workers’ union. It was mutually agreed that a committee consisting of five persons, two from the management and two from the union with the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal as the President 1069 should  be  constituted. They would be  the  arbitrators  to determine the said dispute.     The committee of arbitrators was accordingly  constitut- ed.  The Committee gave its award on April 29, 1988 and  May 11,  1988 directing the management to reinstate in  all  159 workmen. This was the beginning of another dispute which led to  frustrated litigation. The management did not  reinstate the workers. It challenged the validity of the award by  way of writ petition in the High Court. The award was challenged in  the first place on procedural irregularity committed  by the Committee of arbitrators. It was, inter alia,  contended that  the  Deputy Commissioner did not  participate  in  the entire proceedings and during his absence the  administrator Municipal  Committee  Karnal held the enquiry. It  was  also alleged that the Committee did not afford opportunity to the management  to  produce evidence. Secondly, it  was  claimed that  the  arbitration agreement was not  published  in  the official Gazette as required under sub-sec. (3) of Sec.  10A of the Act and the award made without such publication would be  invalid. The learned single judge of the High Court  who considered  the matter did not examine all  the  contentions urged  by  the management. He, however,  accepted  the  writ petition only on the effect of non-publication of the agree- ment in the Gazette. He expressed the view that the require- ment of the sub-sec. (3) is mandatory and its non-compliance would vitiate the award. With this conclusion he quashed the award  and  directed  the State Government  to  publish  the agreement in the Gazette. He also directed the Committee  to determine the dispute afresh and pass an award after  publi- cation of the agreement.     The  employees’ union without preferring Letters  Patent Appeal before the High Court against the judgment of learned single judge has directly appealed to this Court by  obtain- ing  special  leave. Ordinarily, we would have  revoked  the leave since the party has not exhausted the remedy available by  way  of  appeal. But in view of the  importance  of  the question  raised and the need to decide it promptly  in  the interest of industrial adjudication, we proceed to  consider the appeal on merits.     The principal question that arises for consideration  is whether  non-publication  of the  arbitration  agreement  as required under subsec. (3) of sec.  10-A, renders the  arbi- tral award invalid and unenforceable?     Before  outlining  the  statutory  provisions  having  a bearing on the question, we may call attention to the  rele- vant terms of the arbitration agreement. 1070               "1. xxx    xxx    xxx    xxx                2. xxx    xxx    xxx    xxx                     3.  Out of alleged more than 200  termi-               nated workers the               workers  doing the work of cutting  and  sking               are taken back      with immediate effect  and               about the reinstatement of the       remaining               workers  a  committee is constituted.  In  the               Com-       mittee  two members  namely  S/Shri               Ishwar  and Ram Badan      will represent  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

             workers   and   S/Shri   Sunil   Bansal    and               Mohan Lal Wadhwa will be the representatves of               the      Management. The Deputy  Commissioner,               Karnal  would       be the  President  of  the               Committee.  This  Committee  will       decide               this  matter  that out of those  alleged  more               than 200      workers whose services have been               terminated  how many      and who are  workers               of Liberty Group. The workers found      to be               of  the Liberty Group would resume  work  with               immediate  effect.  The  Committee  will  take               decision in this      behalf upto 26th  April,               1988.  In order to ascertain as to       which               of the workers worked in which factory of  the               Liberty  Group, the President shall  have  the               right  to adopt      any procedure  or  method               and  the decision given by him       shall  be               binding on both the parties."     The  parties  entered into the above agreement  and  re- ferred  the dispute for arbitration under sec. 10-A  of  the Act.  Section 10-A is, therefore, important and must be  set out in full:               "10-A.  Voluntary  reference  of  disputes  to               arbitration--                         (1)  Where  any  industrial  dispute               exists or is apprehended and the employer  and               the  workmen  agree to refer  the  dispute  to               arbitration, they may, at any time before  the               dispute  has been referred under sec. 10 to  a               Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal,               by  a written agreement, refer the dispute  to               arbitration and the reference shall be to such               person  or  persons (including  the  presiding               officer  of  a  Labour Court  or  Tribunal  or               National  Tribunal) as an arbitrator or  arbi-               trators as may be specified in the arbitration               agreement.               (l-A) where an arbitration agreement  provides               for  a  reference to the dispute  to  an  even               number of arbitrators, the               1071               agreement shall provide for the appointment of               another person as umpire who shall enter  upon               the reference, if the arbitrators are  equally               divided in their opinion, and the award of the               umpire shall prevail and shall be deemed to be               the arbitration award for the purpose of  this               Act.               (2)  An arbitration agreement referred  to  in               sub-sec.  (1) shall be in such form and  shall               be  signed  by  the parties  thereto  in  such               manner as may be prescribed.               (3) A copy of the arbitration agreement  shall               be forwarded to the appropriate Government and               the  conciliation officer and the  appropriate               Government shall, within (one month) from  the               date of the receipt of such copy, publish  the               same in the Official Gazette.               (3:A)  Where  an industrial dispute  has  been               referred  to arbitration and  the  appropriate               Government  is  satisfied  that  the   persons               making the reference represent the majority of               each  party, the appropriate  Government  may,               within  the time referred to in sub-sec.  (3),               issue a notification in such manner as may  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

             prescribed; and when any such notification  is               issued, the employers and workmen who are  not               parties  to the arbitration agreement but  are               concerned  in the dispute, shall be  given  an               opportunity  of presenting their  case  before               the arbitrator or arbitrators.               (4) The arbitrator or arbitrators shall inves-               tigate the dispute and submit to the appropri-               ate Government the arbitration award signed by               the arbitrator or all the arbitrators, as  the               case may be.               (4-A)  Where  an industrial dispute  has  been               referred to arbitration and a notification has               been issued under sub-sec. 3(a), the appropri-               ate  Government  may, by order,  prohibit  the               continuance  of  any  strike or  lock  out  in               connection  with such dispute which may be  in               existence on the date of the reference."     It may be noted that Sec. 10-A excluding sub-secs.  l-A, 3-A and 4-A have been added to the parent Act by Act No.  36 of 1956. After about eight years, sub-secs. l-A, 3-A and 4-A came to be added by the amending Act No. 36 of 1964. 1072     Consequent  upon  the  additions  of  these  provisions, several  corresponding changes were also made in  the  other provisions  of the Act. Section 2(b) which defines an  award was  amended  by the addition of the words "it  includes  an arbitration award made under sec. 10-A". As a result of this amendment  of  the definition an arbitration award  has  now become  an award for all purposes of the Act attracting  the application  of  secs. 17, 17-A, 18(2), 19(3), 21,  29,  30, 33-C and 36-A of the Act.     It may be noted that secs. 23 and 24 as originally stood provided  power  to the appropriate government  to  prohibit strikes  and  lock-outs, but they could not  be  invoked  in relation  to  proceedings before the  arbitrator.  So  these sections  were  also amended to bring them in  harmony  with sub-secs. (3-A) and (4-A) of sec. 10-A. The Government could now by order prohibit continuance of any strike or  lock-out in connection with a dispute referred to arbitration and  in respect  of which a notification has been issued under  sub- sec. 3-A.     Sub-section (4) of sec. 10-A empowers the arbitrator  to investigate  and  adjudicate  upon  the  industrial  dispute referred  to him under the arbitration agreement.  He  shall submit  an award signed by him. If there are more  than  one arbitrator, all of them must sign the award. The award shall be submitted to the appropriate Government. It is also to be published  like any other award under the Act in  accordance with the provisions of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 17. Section 17-A provides  that  an award (including  an  arbitration  award) shall  become enforceable on the expiry of 30 days from  the date  of its publication. Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 18  makes  an arbitration  award which has become enforceable, binding  on the  parties  to the agreement. Sub-section (3) of  sec.  18 goes  a step further. In a case where notification has  been issued  under sub-sec. (3-A) of sec. 10-A,  the  arbitration award would be binding on all parties to the dispute as well as  on all other persons summoned to appear in the  proceed- ings as parties to the dispute. Such an award will also bind the  successors or assigns of the employer and  all  present and future workmen employed in the establishment.      For  completeness  of the picture we may refer  to  the rules framed by the Central Government under sec. 38(2)(aa). These  rules  make  provision for the  form  of  arbitration

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

agreement,  the place and time of hearing and the powers  of the  arbitrator to take evidence. Rule 7 of  the  Industrial Disputes  (Central)  Rules, 1957 which is relevant  for  our purpose provides: 1073               "7.   Arbitration  Agreement--An   arbitration               agreement  for the reference of an  industrial               dispute to an arbitrator or arbitrators  shall               be  made  in  Form C and  shall  be  delivered               personally or forwarded by registered post  to               the  Secretary to the Government of  India  in               the  Ministry of Labour (in  triplicate),  the               Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi               and the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central)               concerned. The agreement shall be  accompanied               by the consent, in writing, of the  arbitrator               or arbitrators."     In  the light of these statutory provisions, it  is  now necessary to consider whether publication of the arbitration agreement  is obligatory and if so, when it should  be  pub- lished?  To put the question more precisely; whether  it  is necessary  to  publish the agreement within  the  time  pre- scribed  under sub-section (3) of sec. 10-A? And what  would be the consequences of delayed publication?     Arguments  before us ranged a good deal wider than  they appear  to have done in the High Court. The counsel for  the appellant  claimed  that the publication in the  Gazette  is only  for general information and not a condition  precedent for  making the award. When parties have voluntarily  agreed and referred their problem to arbitration and also  partici- pated in the award proceedings, mere non-publication of  the agreement  cannot  render the award invalid.  Such  a  view, counsel asserted, would defeat the very purpose of industri- al  adjudication by consent of parties. He also  urged  that penal consequence for nonpublication of the agreement  since not  prescribed,  the  requirement of  publication  is  only directory  and  not mandatory. He finally  rounded  off  his submission by stating that the publication of the  agreement is necessary, but the period specified under  sub-section(3) is only directory.     Before examining these contentions, it will be useful to have a brief survey of the authorities referred to us at the Bar. In Remington Rand of India Ltd. v. The Workmen,  [1968] 1  SCR 164, the question arose whether the  award  published after the lapse of 30 days as specified in sec. 17(1)  would become  invalid  for non-publication within  the  prescribed time.  Mitter, J., speaking for a Bench of this  Court  held that though sec. 17(1) makes it obligatory on the Government to  publish the award, the time limit of 30 days  prescribed therein, however, is merely directory and not mandatory. The learned judge observed: 1074               "The  limit of time has been fixed as  showing               that the publication of the award ought not to               be held up. But 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 possi-               ble.  For instance, there may be a  strike  in               the  press or there may be any other good  and               sufficient cause by reason of which the publi-               cation  could not be made within thirty  days.               If  we  were  to hold that  the  award  would,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

             therefore,  be rendered invalid, it  would  be               attaching undue importance to a provision  not               in  the  mind of the legislature. It  is  well               known  that it very often takes a long  period               of time for the reference to be concluded  and               the  award  to be made. If the  award  becomes               invalid  merely on the ground  of  publication               after  thirty  days, it might entail  a  fresh               reference  with  needless  harassment  to  the               parties.  The  non-publication  of  the  award               within  the  period of thirty  days  does  not               entail any penalty and this is another consid-               eration which has to be kept in mind."     A Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in  Modern Stores v. Krishna das, AIR 1970 MP 17 took the view that the publication  or  arbitration  agreement in  the  gazette  is obligatory, that is, a sine qua non, but the requirement  of time  "within one month" is only directory and  not  impera- tive.  There  the  management entered  into  an  arbitration agreement with respect to a dispute with the Union on  Janu- ary  22, 1968. It was referred to the Presiding  Officer  of the  Labour  Court, Jabalpur for arbitration. An  award  was made on March 8, 1968 but it was not pronounced until  April 15,  1968,  for want of publication of the  agreement  under sub-sec.  (3) of sec. 10-A. The agreement was  published  in the  Gazette on March 29, 1968. The Court  however,  quashed the  award with a direction to the Presiding Officer  Labour Court to read judicate the dispute referred under sec.  10-A of the Act.      A  similar view was expressed by the Punjab  &  Haryana High Court in Landara Engineering and Foundary Works,  Phil- laur v. The Punjab State and Others, [1969] Lab. I.C. 52.      The Delhi High Court in Mineral Industry Association v. The Union of India and Another, AIR 1971 Deihi 160 has  also accepted  the  same principle but by  simply  following  the decision of the M.P. High Court in Modern Stores case. 1075     The Orissa High Court in Rasbehary Mohanty and Presiding Officer Labour Court and Anr., [1974] (II) LLJ Orissa 222 at 226  has held that if the arbitration agreement is not  pub- lished  as required under sub-sec. (3), it would be  an  in- fraction of the statutory provisions in the matter of refer- ence to the arbitrator and in the making of an award.     The  Mysore High Court since called the  Karnataka  High Court  in  Workmen of Woodlands Hotel v.  K.  Srinivsa  Rao, [1972] Vol. 42 F.J.R. 223 at 226 has observed that an  award of the arbitration under sub-section. (4) cannot be regarded as  valid if the agreement for arbitration is not  published as prescribed under sub-sec. (3).     The  Kerala High Court in Kathyee Cotton Mills  Ltd.  v. District Labour Officer and Ors., [1981] 1 LLJ Kerala 417 at 419 has expressed the view that the requirements of sub-sec. (3)  are mandatory and a failure to comply with  the  provi- sions would vitiate the award.     The  foregoing  authorities of the High  Courts  do  not indicate the reasons in support of the views expressed.  But the  reasons  in our opinion, are not far to seek,  and  are immanent in the importance of provisions of sub-section  (3) and  the object underlying thereunder. We may read  sub-sec- tion (3) along with Rule 7. Rule 7 states that the  arbitra- tion agreement shall be made in form C and delivered person- ally or forwarded by registered post to the Secretary to the Ministry  of  Labour and Chief Labour Commissioner  etc.  It shall  be  accompanied by the consent, in  writing,  of  the arbitrator  or  arbitrators. Sub-section (3)  also  requires

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

that  a  copy  of the agreement shall be  forwarded  to  the appropriate government and the appropriate government shall, within  one  month  from the date of receipt  of  such  copy publish  it in the Official Gazette. At both the  places  it may be noted that the legislature has used the word "shall". In  the context in which this word has been used, there  is, in our opinion, little doubt about obligation to publish the agreement in the Official Gazette. Counsel for the appellant also did not dispute this proposition.     The next question for consideration is whether it should be imperative to publish the agreement within the period  of one  month  as  prescribed under sub-section  (3).  This  is indeed not an easy question for solution. Maxwell tells us:   1076               "That it is impossible to lay down any general               rule  for determining whether a  provision  is               imperative  or  directory."  [Maxwell  on  the               Interpretation of Statutes 12th Ed. p. 3 14].               Craies, however, gives us some guidelines:               "When  a statute is passed for the purpose  of               enabling something to be done, and  prescribes               the  formalities which are to attend its  per-               formance,  those prescribed formalities  which               are  essential  to the validity of  the  thing               when  done are called imperative or  absolute;               but those which are not essential, and may  be               disregarded without invalidating the thing  to               be  done,  are called  directory."  Craeis  on               Statute Law 5th Ed. p. 63].     It  is  now  well established that the  wording  of  any provision are not determinative as to whether it is absolute or  directory. Even the absence of penal provision for  non- compliance  does  not lead to an inference that it  is  only directory. The Court, therefore, must carefully get into the underlying  idea  and ascertain the purpose to  be  achieved notwithstanding the text of the provision.     Now  look  at the provisions of sub-section (3).  It  is with  respect to time for publication of the agreement.  But publication appears to be not necessary for validity of  the agreement. The agreement becomes binding and enforceable  as soon  as it is entered into by the parties.  Publication  is also not an indispensable foundation of jurisdiction of  the arbitrator.  The jurisdiction of the arbitrator  stems  from the  agreement  and not by its publication in  the  Official Gazette.  Why then publication is necessary? Is it  an  idle formality?  Far from it. It would be wrong to construe  sub- section  (3)  in  the manner suggested by  counsel  for  the appellant.  The Act seeks to achieve social justice  on  the basis  of collective bargaining. Collective bargaining is  a technique by which dispute as to conditions of employment is resolved  amicably  by agreement rather than  coercion.  The dispute  is  settled  peacefully  and  voluntarily  although reluctantly  between  labour and management.  The  voluntary arbitration  is a part of infrastructure of dispensation  of justice in the industrial adjudication. The arbitrator  thus falls  within  the rainbow of statutory  tribunals.  When  a dispute is referred to arbitration, it is therefore,  neces- sary  that the workers must be made aware of the dispute  as well  as  the arbitrator whose award ultimately  would  bind them. They must know what is referred to arbitration, who is 1077 their  arbitrator and what is in store for them.  They  must have an opportunity to share their views with each Other had if  necessary to place the same before the arbitrator.  This

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

is  the need for collective bargaining and there  cannot  be collective  bargaining  without involving the  workers.  The Union  only  helps the workers in resolving  their  disputes with  management but ultimately it would be for the  workers to  take  decision  and suggest remedies; it  seems  to  us, therefore, that the arbitration agreement must be  published before  the arbitrator considers the merits of the  dispute. Non-compliance  Of  this requirement would be fatal  to  the arbitral award.     This takes us to the nature of the relief to be  granted in  this  appeal. The High Court has directed the  State  to pUbliSh the arbitration agreement in the Government Gazette. It  has  further directed the Committee  of  arbitrators  to determine the dispute only after its publication. But  there are certain problems in this case to pursue that course. The Deputy Commissioner who was the Chairman of the Committee of arbitrators has since resigned.’it appears that he wants  to run  away from his responsibility. The State Government  has created a fresh problem. Under section 10(1) of the Act, the State Government has referred the dispute to the  Industrial Tribunal, Ambala, for adjudication. That dispute relates  to termination  of  150 employees whose reinstatement  was  the subject  matter of the arbitration agreement. There  is  yet another problem from the side of the management. Against the judgment  of the learned single judge giving certain  direc- tions,  the management has preferred Letters  Patent  Appeal No.  511 of 1988 before a Division Bench of the  High  Court and  obtained stay of the directions. Not merely  that,  the management  has  also challenged the reference made  by  the State  Government  under section 10(1) of the  Act.  It  has moved  the High Court under Article 226 of the  Constitution with  CWP  No.  9455 of 1988 and obtained  stay  of  further proceedings before the Tribunal.     It must be recognised that in the modern welfare  state, healthy  industrial  relations  are a  matter  of  paramount importance.  In  attempting to  solve  industrial  disputes, industrial  adjudication, therefore, should not be  delayed. Voluntary  arbitration  appears to be the  best  method  for settlement  of  industrial  disputes. The  disputes  can  be resolved  speedily and in less than a year, typically  in  a few  months.  The Tribunal adjudication of  reference  under section 10(1) often drags on for several years, thus defeat- ing  the very purpose of the industrial adjudication.  Arbi- tration is also cheaper than litigation with less legal work and  no motion practice. It has limited  document  discovery with 1078 quicker  hearing and less formal than trials.  The  greatest advantage  of arbitration is that there is no right  of  ap- peal,  review  or writ petition. Besides, it  may,  as  well reduce company’s litigation costs and its potential exposure to  ruinous liability apart from redeeming the workmen  from frustration.     This is with regard to advantages of voluntary  arbitra- tion. There is another aspect which was perhaps not realised by  the State Government when it referred the dispute  under section 10(1). Section 10 and 10-A of the Act are the alter- native  remedies to settle an industrial dispute. An  indus- trial dispute can either be referred to an Industrial Tribu- nal  for adjudication under section 10, or the  parties  can enter  into  an  arbitration agreement and refer  it  to  an arbitrator  under  section 10-A. But once the  parties  have chosen their remedy under section 10-A the Government cannot refer  that dispute for adjudication under section  10.  The said  reference made by the Government under  section  10(1)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

cannot, therefore, be sustained.     With these prefatory observations w.e" make the  follow- ing directions:                      (i) The State Government shall  publish               condition No. ’3’ in the arbitration agreement               in  the Government Gazette within  four  weeks               from  today.  (ii)  The  agreement  containing               condition  No.  ’3’  stands  referred  to  the               Industrial  Tribunal,  Haryana at  Ambala  for               passing  arbitration award in accordance  with               law;  (iii) The reference made  under  section               10(1) of the Act to the Industrial Tribunal is               quashed;  and (iv) The management shall  with-               draw  the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal  and               the  Writ Petition pending in the  High  Court               within  three weeks from today  failing  which               the High Court shall dispose them of as having               become infructuous.      A copy of this judgment shall be transmitted  forthwith to  the Industrial Tribunal Haryana at Ambala. The  Tribunal after  affording opportunity to parties to produce  evidence of  their  choice and also opportunity  cross  examine  each other shall dispose of the matter expeditiously, and at  any rate  not later than six months from the date of  first  ap- pearance  of  parties. The parties shall appear  before  the Tribunal  on 15th September, 1989 to receive further  direc- tion. The  appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order  as  to costs.                              Appeal disposed of. Y. Lal 1079