C.W.P. No.13661 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No.13661 of 2009
Date of Decision:02.09.2009
Central Bank of India .....Petitioner
Versus
Central Government Industrial Tribunal and another ...Respondents
Present: Mr. A.P. Jagga, Advocate
for the petitioner.
CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?Yes
-.-
K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)
1. The writ petition challenges a direction by the Court to get
the parties present in the Court on 03.09.2009 for effecting
conciliation. The order records the fact that in past it has found more
than 30% of disposal have come through conciliation and it was the
strong opinion of the Presiding Officer that conciliation shall be done
and for such a process the presence of the party is necessary.
2. The impugned direction contains also a reference to an
alleged statement by the authorized representative of the competent
authority to secure the presence in Court. It is invariably a matter of
procedure for the Court as to what is the best course to adopt for an
adjudication and if in the Court’s view, conciliation is always the best
method of resolving a dispute, it should again be on fundamental
premise that parties are willing for such a course. While it could be a
C.W.P. No.13661 of 2009 -2-
prerogative of a Presiding Officer to take a decision on merits, it is
never a prerogative of an officer to compel conciliation. It subverts
the very idea of conciliation for, no conciliatory process could ever be
successful if one party is not willing. While one can appreciate the
zeal expressed by the Presiding Officer, it would ill-behove the proper
conduct of an officer to ride rough-shod over the respective party’s
individual volition and force a mechanism which in the perception of
the Presiding Officer is the best mode.
3. In Saleem Bar Association (II) Vs. Union of India (2005)
6 SCC 344, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in relation to Section 89
CPC, “it is evident that all four alternatives, viz, arbitration,
conciliation, judicial settlement including settlement through the Lok
Adalat and mediation are mean to be the action of persons or
institution outside the court and not before the court. Order 11 Rule
1-C speaks of the ‘Conciliation Forum’ referring back the dispute to
the Court. In fact, the Court is not involved in the actual
mediation/conciliation. Section 89(2)(d) only means that when
mediation succeeds and parties agree to the terms of settlement, the
mediator will report to the court and the Court, after giving notice and
hearing the parties, “effect” the compromise and pass a decree in
accordance with the terms of settlement accepted by the parties. The
very act of filing the writ petition by the petitioner shows that it is not
in conciliatory mode. If that is the posture, it could be unfortunate but
that only a party can take the course of what is appropriate in his own
perception. The confidence in the court process will take a beating if
a Presiding Officer compels party to conciliatory mode even when it is
C.W.P. No.13661 of 2009 -3-
expressed by one of them that he is not interested in such course.
3. I set aside the direction passed by the learned Presiding
Officer even at the stage of admission without serving a notice on the
other side for the better administration of justice that messages loud
and clear that Court shall not force a conciliation when parties do not
want it. The writ petition is allowed at the stage of admission itself.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
September 02, 2009
Pankaj*