{"id":226299,"date":"1969-10-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1969-10-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-vs-management-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-on-17-october-1969"},"modified":"2017-04-05T12:48:07","modified_gmt":"2017-04-05T07:18:07","slug":"workmen-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-vs-management-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-on-17-october-1969","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-vs-management-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-on-17-october-1969","title":{"rendered":"Workmen Of M\/S. Delhi Cloth And … vs Management Of M\/S. Delhi Cloth And … on 17 October, 1969"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Workmen Of M\/S. Delhi Cloth And … vs Management Of M\/S. Delhi Cloth And … on 17 October, 1969<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 1851, \t\t 1970 SCR (2) 886<\/div>\n
Author: I Dua<\/div>\n
Bench: Dua, I.D.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nWORKMEN OF M\/S.\t DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMANAGEMENT OF M\/S.  DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS LTD.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n17\/10\/1969\n\nBENCH:\nDUA, I.D.\nBENCH:\nDUA, I.D.\nRAMASWAMI, V.\n\nCITATION:\n 1970 AIR 1851\t\t  1970 SCR  (2) 886\n 1969 SCC  (3) 302\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1981 SC1660\t (7)\n\n\nACT:\nIndustrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947) s. 18(1) and Industrial\nDisputes (Central) Rules, 1957 r. 58 (4)-Non-compliance with\nrule-Settlement\t between management and union if binding  on\nworkmen.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nIn conciliation proceedings before the Conciliation Officer,\nD.C.M. (City Shop) Karamchari Union espoused workman Shibban\nLal's  cause.\tOn June 18, 1965  the  Conciliation  Officer\nsubmitted his failure report to the Government.\t On June  9,\n1965 a settlement had been arrived at between the Union\t and\nthe management of the D.C. & G. Mills Ltd.  The Conciliation\nOfficer was not informed of this settlement before the\tsub-\nmission\t of his report.\t The settlement dated June  9,\t1965\nwas filed before the Conciliation Officer on June 30,  1965.\nPursuant to the Conciliation Officer's report the industrial\ndispute\t was  referred by the Government to  the  Additional\nIndustrial  Tribunal.  On October 6, 1965 written  statement\nwas filed by the management before the Tribunal.  The  Kapra\nKaramchari  Sangh also filed a statement of claim on  behalf\nof  workman Shibban Lal through its General Secretary  along\nwith  an application for substituting the Sangh in place  of\nthe Union.  It was stated in the application that since\t the\nUnion had entered into a settlement with the management\t not\nto  contest  Shibban  Lal's case, 53 out of  88\t workers  of\nD.C.M.\t(City Shop) had requested the Sangh to take up\tthis\nworker's  case\tand  the  Sangh\t had  thereupon\t unanimously\ndecided\t to take up his cause.\tThe management opposed\tthis\napplication.   It was finally decided that the Sangh  should\nrepresent Shibban Lal workman without its being\t substituted\nfor the Union.\tThe management then pressed its objection to\nthe validity of the settlement of claim filed by the  Sangh.\nThe  Tribunal held that the claim filed by the Sangh  should\nbe  deemed to have been filed on behalf of Shibban Lal.\t  On\nappeal\tin this Court the correctness of this view  was\t not\nchallenged  on behalf of the respondent.  The special  leave\napplication  in\t this Court was supported  by  an  affidavit\nsworn by Shibban Lal.\nOn   a\tpreliminary  objection\traised\ton  behalf  of\t the\nrespondent to the competency of the appeal presented in this\nCourt by the Sangh on the ground that the Sangh was  neither\na  party to the industrial dispute before the  Tribunal\t nor\ndid  it\t espouse  Shibban Lal's\t cause\tin  the\t proceedings\nagainst him.\nHELD  : (1) On the facts and circumstances of this case\t the\nspecial\t leave\tapplication and the appeal must be  held  to\nhave  been filed in this Court by the Sangh as\trepresenting\nShibban\t Lal who had agreed to be represented by the  Sangh.\nThe  appeal  filed  by\tthe  Sangh,  therefore,\t cannot\t  be\nconsidered to be unauthorised and legally incompetent on the\nground urged. [891 G-H]\n(2)  Rule 58 (4) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules,\n1957  made  under s. 38 of the Industrial Disputes  Act\t has\nfull force of law of\n887\nwhich judicial notice can be taken.  This rule must be fully\ncomplied with if the settlement is to have a binding  effect\non all workmen. [896 A]\n(3)  When a dispute is referred to the Conciliation  Officer\nthe management and the workers' Union cannot claim  absolute\nfreedom\t of  contract  to  arrive at  a\t settlement  in\t all\nrespects  binding on all workmen.  An agreement to be  valid\nand  binding must comply with the provisions of the  Statute\nand  the  Rules\t made thereunder.   The\t settlement  in\t the\npresent\t case  did  not\t comply\t with  r.  58(4)  which\t  is\nmandatory.   Therefore, under s. 18(1) of the Act read\twith\nthe  other  sub-sections in the light of the  definition  of\n\"Settlement\"  contained\t in s. 2(p) there is  no  unfettered\nfreedom\t in  the  management and the  Union  to\t settle\t the\ndispute as they please so as to clothe the settlement with a\nbinding effect on all workmen or even on all  member-workmen\nof the Union. [895 B-D]\n(4)  Though the plea of non-compliance with r. 58(4) was not\nraised\t by  the  appellant  before  the  Tribunal  if\t the\nrespondent  wanted  to show that the reference\twas  invalid\nbecause of a lawful settlement then it was incumbent on\t the\nparty  relying\ton such a settlement to prove  that  it\t was\nlawful\tand valid, rendering the reference illegal.  It\t was\nalso  incumbent on the Tribunal to satisfy itself  that\t the\nsettlement  was\t in accordance with the\t Act  and  Statutory\nRules. [896 A-B]\n[The  case  was\t accordingly remanded to  the  Tribunal\t for\nadjudication upon the dispute on the merits.]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  2006  of
\n1966.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the Award dated  February\t 17,
\n1966  of the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No.  176  of
\n1965.\n<\/p>\n
D.   R. Gupta and H. K. Puri, for the appellants.
\nC.   K.\t Daphtary,  D. R. Thadani and A. N. Goyal,  for\t the
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nDua, J. The Workmen of M\/s.  Delhi Cloth and General  Mills,
\nBara  Hindu  Rao,  Delhi, have appealed\t to  this  Court  by
\nspecial\t leave from the award of the  Additional  Industrial
\nTribunal, Delhi dated February 17, 1966 holding that Shibban
\nLal  was  bound by the settlement dated June  9,  1965\tand,
\ntherefore,  there was no industrial dispute on the  date  of
\nreference which could be referred for adjudication.
\nThe  facts necessary for the purpose of this appeal may\t now
\nbe  briefly stated.  The Chief Commissioner, Delhi by  means
\nof an order dated September 9, 1965 referred the dispute  in
\ncontroversy to the Additional Industrial Tribunal, the order
\nof reference being in the following terms :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Whereas\tfrom  a\t report\t submitted  by\t the
\n\t      Conciliation  Officer,  Delhi  under   section
\n\t      12(4) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947,  it
\n\t      appears that an industrial dispute
\n\t      888<\/span>
\n\t      exists  between the management of M\/s.   Delhi
\n\t      Cloth  & General Mills, Ltd., Bara Hindu\tRao,
\n\t      Delhi and its workmen and Shri Shibban Lal and
\n\t      the  said\t dispute has been taken\t up  by\t the
\n\t      D.C.M.  (City  Shop) Karamchari  Union,  1121,
\n\t      Chatta  Madan Gopal, Maliwara, Chandni  Chowk,
\n\t      Delhi.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Before the Additional Industrial Tribunal the Management had
\nraised\t various   preliminary\tobjections   including\t the
\nobjection that Kapra Karamchari Sangh (hereafter called\t the
\nSangh) was not competent to take up the case of Shri Shibban
\nLal,  and  that\t the D.C.M.  (City  Shop)  Karamchari  Union
\n(hereafter called the Union), which had originally taken  up
\nthe cause of workmen, having agreed by the settlement  dated
\nJune 9, 1965 not to prosecute his case, withdrew its support
\nto  his cause with the result that the dispute\trelating  to
\nthe dismissal of Shibban Lal was, not an industrial dispute.
\nIt was further averred that Shibban Lal was bound by the act
\nof  his\t representatives who had made the  settlement  dated
\nJune 9, 1965, and was, therefore, estopped from\t challenging
\nthe same.\n<\/p>\n
\t      On these preliminary objections the  following
\n\t      four issues were framed and    were  taken  up
\n\t      for decision in the first instance.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (1) Has the Karpra Karamchari Sangh no  locus-
\n\t      standi to file the statement of claim ?\n<\/p>\n
\t      2.    Is the reference incompetent because  of
\n\t      settlement  dated\t June 9,  1965\tbetween\t the
\n\t      D.C.M.   (City  Shop)  Karamchari\t Union\t and
\n\t      Management ?\n<\/p>\n
\t      3.    Is\t the  dispute  not   an\t  industrial
\n\t      dispute?\n<\/p>\n
\t      4.    Is Shibban Lal estopped from raising the
\n\t      present dispute ?\n<\/p>\n
On  issue No. 1. the Tribunal held that although  the  Sangh
\nhad been merely authorised to represent Shibban Lal and\t was
\nnot  a party entitled to file the statement of claim in\t its
\nown  right,  nevertheless the claim filed by it\t was  to  be
\ndeemed\tto be on behalf of Shibban Lal who had agreed to  be
\nrepresented by the Sangh.  Issues Nos. 2 to 4 were discussed
\ntogether  and  the Tribunal held that the  settlement  dated
\nJune  9, 1965 which was signed on behalf of workmen  by\t the
\nSecretary and Vice President of the Union was not arrived at
\nby   unauthorised   persons.   The  said   settlement\twas,
\ntherefore, held binding on persons who were parties  thereto
\nand Shibban Lal being a member of the Union was bound by it.
\nIn face of that settlement, the Tribunal felt that there was
\nno   industrial\t  dispute  which  could\t be   referred\t for
\nadjudication on the date of reference.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    889<\/span><\/p>\n
In this Court on behalf of the respondent, the Management of
\nM\/s.   Delhi  Cloth  and General Mills\tLtd.  a\t preliminary
\nobjection  was\traised\tto the\tcompetency  of\tthe  present
\nappeal.\t  It was contended by Shri Daphtary that the  appeal
\nwas presented in this Court by the Sangh which was neither a
\nparty to the industrial dispute before the Tribunal, nor did
\nit  espouse the cause of Shibban Lal’s\tdismissal.   Shibban
\nLal,  according\t to the submission, being a  party  affected
\ncould certainly appeal but not the Sangh.  It was added that
\nShibban\t Lal being the solitary employee of the\t respondent,
\nwho  was  the member of the Sangh the latter  was  not\tonly
\ndisentitled  to espouse Shibban Lal’s cause but as a  matter
\nof fact it did not so; the Sangh, the counsel argued, merely
\nundertook to represent Shibban Lal before the Tribunal.
\nWe  are unable to uphold the preliminary objection.   It  is
\nclear  from  the record that the Union\toriginally  took  up
\nShibban\t Lal’s\tcause.\tOn June 18,  1965  the\tConciliation
\nOfficer submitted his failure report to the Government.\t  It
\nis apparent that till then the Conciliation Officer was\t not
\ninformed by either of the parties that a settlement had been
\narrived at in the matter of the dispute in question.  Indeed
\nthe   record  shows  that  Shri\t Jai  Bhagwan  Sharma,\t who
\nrepresented the workman in the conciliation proceedings\t had
\ninformed  the  Conciliation Officer that no  settlement\t had
\nbeen reached.  The settlement dated June 9, 1965 appears  to
\nhave been filed before the Conciliation Officer on June\t 30,
\n1965, long after the submission of the failure report.\t The
\nAdditional  Industrial Tribunal after taking  cognizance  of
\nthe  dispute issued notice to the parties on  September\t 16,
\n1965  fixing  October 5, 1965 for filing the  statements  of
\nclaim.\t The case was, however, taken up on October 6,\t1965
\nbecause October 5, 1965 was declared a gazetted holiday.  On
\nOctober\t 6,  1965  the written statement was  filed  by\t the
\nManagement.   The Sangh also filed a statement of  claim  on
\nbehalf\tof  Shibban Lal through Shri  Jai  Bhagwan,  General
\nSecretary of the Sangh, with an application for substituting
\nthe  Sangh  in\tplace  of the  Union  as  mentioned  in\t the
\nreference,   it\t being\taverred\t in  the   application\t for
\nsubstitution  that consequent upon the Union having  entered
\ninto a settlement with the Management not to contest Shibban
\nLal’s claim, 53 out of 88 workers of D.C.M. (City Shop)\t had
\nrequested  the Sangh to take up Shibban Lal’s case  and\t the
\nSangh  thereupon unanimously decided to take up\t his  cause.
\nThe  dispute,  it  was added, concerned\t all  workmen.\t The
\nManagement  was given an opportunity to file  objections  to
\nthis  application.   On\t October  28,  1965  the  Management
\nopposed the application of the Sangh for being impleaded  in
\nplace of the Union.  While opposing the prayer of the  Sangh
\nthe  Management expressed ignorance about the averment\tthat
\n53 out of 88 workers of D.C.M. (City Shop) had
\n890<\/span>
\nrequested the Sangh to take up the cause of Shibban Lal.  It
\nwas  added  that  espousal by the Sangh at  that  stage\t was
\nillegal\t as  the  matter had already been  referred  by\t the
\nGovernment.  Espousal, according to this plea, could only be
\nat  the stage of conciliation proceedings and not after\t the
\nreference.   It was also denied that the  dispute  concerned
\nall  workmen.  An agreement having been entered into by\t the
\nUnion,\trepresentation by the Sangh was described to  be  an
\nabuse  of  the\tprocess of law.\t The  dispute,\tpleaded\t the
\nManagement, had been settled for ever and Shibban Lal was  a
\nparty  to  the\tsaid  settlement.   Shibban  Lal  filed\t  an
\naffidavit  on November 3, 1965, affirming that, on  December
\n26,  1964,  the Union had properly resolved to\tcontest\t his
\nclaim And that on December 28, 1964 the statement of  claim,
\nregarding Shibban Lal’s proposed retirement on December\t 31,
\n1964,  was  filed before the Conciliation Officer.   It\t was
\nfurther\t affirmed  in this affidavit : (i) that\t during\t the
\npendency of the dispute before the Conciliation Officer, the
\nManagement  retired him and he was not allowed to join\tduty
\nwith  effect from January 1, 1967, (ii) that in the  absence
\nof  any\t valid authority either from the Union or  from\t the
\nparties, pursuant to a resolution to that effect, passed  by
\nthe workmen of the establishment, Shri Musaddi Lal and\tShri
\nBabu  Ram had no authority to enter into any  settlement  in
\nrespect of deponent’s dispute, (iii) that no settlement\t was
\never brought to the notice of the Union or the workmen, (iv)
\nthat  on June 14, 1965 the Union of the workmen opposed\t the
\nsaid  settlement, was resolved that the Union did not  agree
\nto  any\t settlement  whatsoever\t regarding  the\t  deponent’s
\nretirement,   including\t  settlement  in  respect   of\t the
\nconciliation  proceedings,  (v) that on July  25,  1965\t the
\nUnion of the workmen opposed the said settlement, (vi)\tthat
\nthe settlement had been filed by the conciliation Officer on
\nJune 24, 1965 whereas the failure report of the said officer
\nhad even reached the Government on June 18, 1965, (vii) that
\nthe  settlement\t had not been verified by  the\tConciliation
\nOfficer, (viii) that the deponent had also written a  letter
\nto the Union challenging the authority of the signatories on
\nits  behalf, and even the authority of the Union itself,  to
\nenter into the said settlement without appropriate and valid
\nauthority,  (ix) that the deponent could not read  or  write
\nHindi  or  English  except that he could sign  his  name  in
\nEnglish\t and (X) that out of 88 employees 53 had  authorised
\nthe  Sangh  to take up the deponent’s case with\t the  result
\nthat espousal by his co-employee workers was continuous.
\nIn the affidavit of Shri Deoki Nandan Agarwal, on behalf  of
\nthe  Management, sworn on November 4, 1965, it was  affirmed
\ninter alia (i) that the Management and the Union had on June
\n9,  1965 entered into two settlements, one relating  to\t the
\nindustrial  dispute  case  No. 211 of  1962  and  the  other
\nrelating to the age of
\n891<\/span>
\nretirement  including the case of Shibban Lal  etc.  pending
\nbefore the Conciliation Officer.  The settlement relating to
\nthe Industrial Dispute Case No. 211 of 1962 had been made an
\naward of the Court and the other settlement relating to\t the
\nage  of\t retirement had been filed before  the\tConciliation
\nOfficer,   copies  of  both  the  settlements  having\tbeen
\nforwarded  to Government authorities, (ii) that Shibban\t Lal
\nbeing the President of the Union, at the time of settlement,
\nwas  bound  by\tit  and (iii) that  the\t Sangh,\t having\t not
\nespoused the cause of Shibban Lal before September 2,  1965,
\nthe date of reference, could not do so thereafter; nor could
\nany  other member of the Union take up his cause  after\t the
\nsettlement dated September 6, 1965.\n<\/p>\n
The  application  for  substitution was\t finally  heard\t oil
\nDecember  17, 1965 when Shri D. R. Gupta, on behalf  of\t the
\nSangh  stated  that  he\t did  not  want\t the  Sangh  to\t  be
\nsubstituted in place of the Union but he merely wanted it to
\nrepresent  Shibban  Lal, who was at that  time\tits  member.
\nShri  G. C. Bhandari, on behalf of the Management,  did\t not
\nobject to Shibban Lal being represented by the Sangh and  he
\nconfined  his  objection only to Shibban Lal’s\tcause  being
\nespoused  by  the Sangh after the order of  reference.\t The
\nTribunal accordingly allowed the Sangh to represent  Shibban
\nLal.   Up  to that stage the Management did  not  press\t the
\npoint  that there was no valid statement of claim  filed  on
\nbehalf of Shibban Lal and the validity of the claim filed by
\nthe  Sangh had been apparently assumed.\t The Management\t was
\nperhaps\t at  that  time only  thinking\tof  questioning\t the
\nexistence  of industrial dispute on the ground that  Shibban
\nLal’s dispute was an individual dispute, not being  espoused
\nby any union of workmen.\n<\/p>\n
The  validity of the statement of claim filed by  the  Sangh
\nwas mooted and pressed in one of the preliminary  objections
\nwhich  gave  rise  to preliminary  issue  No.  1  reproduced
\nearlier\t in  this  judgment.   On  this\t issue,\t as  already
\nobserved,  the Tribunal decided that the claim filed by\t the
\nSangh  should  be  deemed to have been filed  on  behalf  of
\nShibban Lal.  The respondent’s counsel did not challenge the
\ncorrectness of this view of the Tribunal and it was not\t the
\nrespondent’s  submission before us that there was no  proper
\nstatement of claim on behalf of Shibban Lal.  In this  Court
\nalso special leave application is supported by an  affidavit
\nsworn  by Shibban Lal, the workman concerned.\tThe  special
\nleave  application and the, appeal must, therefore, be\theld
\nto   have  been\t filed\tin  this  Court\t by  the  Sangh\t  as
\nrepresenting  Shibban  Lal, who apparently agreed to  be  so
\nrepresented by the Sangh.  On the facts and circumstances of
\nthis  case, we do not think that the present appeal  can  be
\nconsidered to be unauthorised and legally incompetent on the
\ntechnical ground urged on behalf of the respondent and we do
\nnot find any cogent ground to reject the appeal on the basis
\nof the preliminary objection.\n<\/p>\n
892<\/span><\/p>\n
We now turn to the merits of the controversy.  The  Tribunal
\ntook  the view that the dispute regarding retirement age  of
\nShibban\t Lal ceased to be an industrial dispute\t because  of
\nthe  settlement dated June 9, 1965 and, therefore, it  could
\nnot be referred to it for adjudication.\t Support of his case
\nby the workers of any other
\nUnion  after  reference could not in its view  validate\t the
\nreference.  The appellant’s learned counsel challenged\tthis
\nview  and  drew\t our attention to r. 58\t of  the  Industrial
\nDisputes  (Central)  Rules,  1957 made under S.\t 38  of\t the
\nIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947.\tThis rule reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “58.  Memorandum of settlement:
\n\t      (1)  A settlement arrived at in the course  of
\n\t      conciliation proceedings or otherwise shall be
\n\t      in form ‘H’
\n\t      (2)   the settlement shall be signed-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   in\tthe  case  of an  employee,  by\t the
\n\t      employer himself, or by his authorised  agent,
\n\t      or  when\tthe  employer  is  an\tincorporated
\n\t      company or other body corporate, by the agent,
\n\t      manager  or  other principal  officer  of\t the
\n\t      corporation;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   in\tthe case of workmen, by any  officer
\n\t      of  a  trade  union  of  workmen\tor  by\tfive
\n\t      representatives of workmen duly authorised  in
\n\t      this  behalf at a meeting of the workmen\theld
\n\t      for the purpose.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Explanation-In  this rule “officer” means\t any
\n\t      of the following officers, namely-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)    the President;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   the Vice-President;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)   the\t Secretary  (including\tthe  General
\n\t      Secretary);\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (d)   a Joint Secretary;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (e)   any\t other\tofficer of the\ttrade  union
\n\t      authorised in this behalf by the President and
\n\t      Secretary of the Union.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (3)   Where a settlement is arrived at in\t the
\n\t      course   of   conciliation   proceeding\t the
\n\t      Conciliation  Officer  Shall  send  a   report
\n\t      thereof  to  the Central\tGovernment  together
\n\t      with  a copy of the memorandum  of  settlement
\n\t      signed by the parties to the dispute.
\n\t      (4)   Where a settlement is arrived at between
\n\t      an employer and his workmen otherwise than  in
\n\t      the course of conciliation proceeding before a
\n\t      Board or a Concilia-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t   893<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      tion  Officer, the parties to  the  settlement
\n\t      shall  jointly  send  a copy  thereof  to\t the
\n\t      Central\t Government,   the   Chief    Labour
\n\t      Commissioner  (  Central) New Delhi,  and\t the
\n\t      Regional\tLabour Commissioner, New Delhi,\t and
\n\t      to   the\t Conciliation\tOfficer\t   (Central)
\n\t      concerned.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Form ‘H’ may also now be reproduced
\n\t      “Form for Memorandum of Settlement
\n\t      Name of parties
\n\t      Representing employer (s)
\n\t      Representing workmen :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Short recital of the case
\n\t      Terms of settlement
\n\t      Witness
\n\t      (1)<\/span>
\n\t      (2)<\/span>
\n\t      Signature of the parties
\n\t\t    Signature of Conciliation Officer
\n\t\t\t  Board of Conciliation
\n\t      Copy to:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (1)   Conciliation  Officer  (Central)   (here
\n\t      enter  the office address of the\tConciliation
\n\t      Officer in the local area concerned).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)   Regional\t   Labour\tCommissioner\n\t      (Central)....\n<\/pre>\n
\t      (3)   Chief Labour Commissioner (Central)\t New
\n\t      Delhi
\n\t      (4)   The\t Secretary  to\tthe  Government\t  of
\n\t      India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The plain reading of the rule and the Form, according to the
\nappellant, clearly suggests its mandatory character.  It was
\ncontended that the settlement was not entered into with\t the
\nconcurrence  of he Conciliation Officer nor was\t it  entered
\nduring\tthe conciliation proceedings.\tParticular  emphasis
\nwas   laid   on\t noncompliance\twith  sub-rule\t (4).\t The
\nsettlement,  in the circumstances, was urged to\t be  invalid
\nand  the reference of the dispute quite in  accordance\twith
\nlaw.  In this connection the learned advocate referred to s.
\n18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is as  follows
\n:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Persons\ton whom settlements and\t awards\t are
\n\t      binding
\n\t      894<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      18.   (1) A settlement arrived at by agreement
\n\t      between  the employer and\t workmen  (otherwise
\n\t      than in the course of conciliation proceeding)
\n\t      shall  be\t binding  on  the  parties  to\t the
\n\t      agreement.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)   Subject to the provisions of sub-section
\n\t      (3)  an  arbitration award  which\t has  became
\n\t      enforceable shall be binding on the parties to
\n\t      the  agreement  who referred  the\t dispute  to
\n\t      arbitration.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (3)   A settlement arrived at in the course of
\n\t      conciliation proceedings under this Act or  an
\n\t      arbitration   award   in\ta   case   where   a
\n\t      notification  has\t be-en\tissued\tunder\tsub-
\n\t      section  (3A) of section 10A or an award of  a
\n\t      Labour  Court, Tribunal or  National  Tribunal
\n\t      which has become enforceable shall be  binding
\n\t      on-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   all parties to the industrial dispute;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   all other parties summoned to appear  in
\n\t      the  proceedings\tas parties to  the  dispute,
\n\t      unless  the Board, Arbitrator,  Labour  Court,
\n\t      Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may
\n\t      be,  records  the opinion that  they  were  so
\n\t      summoned without proper cause;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)   where a party referred to in clause\t (a)
\n\t      or  clause  (b)  is an  employer,\t his  heirs,
\n\t      successors,  or  assigns\tin  respect  of\t the
\n\t      establishment to which the dispute relates;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (d)   where a party referred to in clause\t (a)
\n\t      or  clause  (b) is composed  of  workmen,\t all
\n\t      persons\t who\twere   employed\t   in\t the
\n\t      establishment-or part of the establishment, as
\n\t      the case may be, to which the dispute  relates
\n\t      on the date of the dispute and all persons who
\n\t      subsequently    become   employed\t  in\tthat
\n\t      establishment or part.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  decision  in  The\tBata Shoe Co.  (P)  Ltd.  v.  D.  N.
\nGanguly<\/a>(l)  was\t cited in support of the submission  that  a
\nsettlement during the conciliation proceedings to be binding
\nmust  be arrived at with the assistance and  concurrence  of
\nthe Conciliation Officer.\n<\/p>\n
The  respondent’s learned Advocate in reply  obliquely\tsug-
\ngested in this connection that the Management and the  Union
\nwere free to arrive at a settlement of their dispute and  if
\nthey  agreed  to do so then the agreement could not  but  be
\nheld to be
\n(1)  [1960] 3.S.C.R. 308.\n<\/p>\n
895<\/span><\/p>\n
binding.  We do not think the Management and the Union\tcan,
\nwhen  a\t dispute is referred to\t the  Conciliation  Officer,
\nclaim absolute freedom of contract to arrive at a settlement
\nin  all\t respects  binding  on\tall  workmen,  to  which  no
\nobjection  whatsoever  can  ever be raised  by\tthe  workmen
\nfeeling\t aggrieved.   The question of a\t valid\tand  binding
\nsettlement  in\tsuch  circumstances,  is  in  our   opinion,
\ngoverned  by  the  statute and the  rules  made\t thereunder.
\nReliance  was next placed on s.18(1) to support the  binding
\ncharacter of the settlement.  This sub-section for its\tpro-
\nper  construction must be read with the\t other\tsub-sections
\nand  the relevant rules, in the light of the  definition  of
\n‘settlement’  as  contained  in s. 2(p)\t of  the  Industrial
\nDisputes   Act.\t  ‘Settlement’\tas  defined  therein   means
\nsettlement  arrived at\tin  the\t course\t of   conciliation
\nproceeding  and\t includes a written  agreement\tbetween\t the
\nemployer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course
\nof  conciliation  proceeding where such agreement  has\tbeen
\nsigned\tby  the\t parties thereto in such manner\t as  may  be
\nprescribed  and\t a  copy  thereof  has\tbeen  sent  to\t the
\nappropriate Government and the Conciliation Officer.  In the
\nlight  of these provisions we do not think that s. 1 8 (1  )
\nvests in the Management and the Union unfettered freedom  to
\nsettle\tthe  dispute  as they please and clothe\t it  with  a
\nbinding effect on all workmen or even on all member  workmen
\nof  the Union.\tThe settlement has to be in compliance\twith
\nthe statutory provisions.\n<\/p>\n
It  was then contended by Shri Daphtary that  non-compliance
\nwith  r.  8 8 (4) having not been pleaded by  the  appellant
\nbefore the Tribunal, no question of proof by the  respondent
\nof  compliance therewith arose.\t This plea, it was  strongly
\nobjected,  should not be allowed to be raised at  this\tlate
\nstage in this Court.\n<\/p>\n
We ‘are not impressed by this submission.  On reference hav-
\ning  been  made by the Government to the  Tribunal,  if\t the
\nrespondent  wanted to show that this reference\twas  invalid
\nbecause of a lawful settlement, then it was incumbent on the
\nparty  relying\ton such a settlement to prove  that  it\t was
\nlawful and valid, rendering the reference illegal.  This was
\nparticularly  so  when we find that Shibban Lal had  in\t his
\naffidavit expressly asserted that the settlement relied upon
\nhad not been filed before the Conciliation Officer prior  to
\nJune 18, 1965 when he sent his failure report and also\tthat
\nthe  two  persons  entering  into  the\tsettlement  had\t  no
\nauthority either from the Union or from the members  thereof
\nto  enter  into\t a binding agreement.\tSection\t 38  of\t the
\nIndustrial Disputes Act empowers the appropriate  Government
\nto  make  rules\t for the purpose of  giving  effect  to\t the
\nprovisions of the Act.\tRules made by the Central Government
\nhave  to  be laid before each House of Parliament  while  in
\nsession for a period of 30 days and the Houses of Parliament
\nare given an opportunity of not only modifying them but even
\nof deciding that the rules should not be made at all.\n<\/p>\n
896<\/span><\/p>\n
These  rules thus appear to us to have full force of law  of
\nwhich  judicial\t notice has to be taken.  It  was  therefore
\nincumbent  on  the  Tribunal  to  satisfy  itself  that\t the
\nsettlement  relied upon by the respondent in support of\t the
\nplea of it legality of the reference, which vitally affected
\nits  jurisdiction, was in accordance with the provisions  of
\nboth  Industrial  Disputes Act and  the\t relevant  statutory
\nrules.\t This  was  all the more so in\tview  of  the  pleas
\ncontained  in  Shibban Lal’s affidavit produced\t before\t the
\nTribunal  to which reference has already been made  in\tthis
\njudgment.   Though  no reference was  specifically  made  to
\nr.58,  the facts affirmed were reasonably clear\t to  attract
\nthe attention of the Tribunal to the question of legality of
\nthe   settlement.   Bearing  in\t mind  the  object  of\t the
\nIndustrial  Disputes  Act and the important  public  purpose
\nwhich  it is designed to serve, the Tribunal, in  our  view,
\nhad  an obligation to make a deeper probe into the  validity
\nof the settlement and not to accept it casually.
\nHowever, on the respondent’s argument that r.58 had not been
\nspecifically  relied  upon  by\tthe  appellant\tbefore\t the
\nTribunal  we  felt  inclined and  indeed  suggested  to\t the
\nrespondent  during  the course of arguments  that  the\tcase
\nmight  be  submitted  to the Tribunal  for  the\t purpose  of
\ndeciding  the  question of compliance with  the\t said  rule,
\nparticularly  with  sub-rule  (4).   But  the\trespondent’s
\nlearned\t Advocate with his usual fairness,  frankly  pointed
\nout  that remand for this purpose would not be of  much\t use
\nbecause\t this sub-rule had not been complied with in  terms.
\nA  faint  suggestion thrown at once stage that it  had\tbeen
\nsubstantially co ‘lied with was not seriously pressed though
\nour  attention\twas  drawn in that connection  to  a  letter
\nwritten by the Management on July 16, 1965 to the Secretary,
\nMinistry of Labour, Government of India, enclosing a copy of
\nthe settlement arrived at by the Management and the Union in
\nconnection with the matters stated therein.  The  settlement
\nwas said to contain the following\n<\/p>\n
1.   Age of retirement\n<\/p>\n
2.   Case of Shri Shibban Lal\n<\/p>\n
3.   Case of Shri Mansuka\n<\/p>\n
4.   Case of 7 Kahars\n<\/p>\n
5.   Case of reduction in pay of 12 workmen\n<\/p>\n
6.   Case of Shri Jagan Nath\n<\/p>\n
7.   Case of Shri Chiranjilal Pahalwan.\n<\/p>\n
This letter quite clearly does not amount to compliance with
\nthe rule.  Keeping in view its object and purpose, this rule
\ndoes  seem to demand full compliance in order to clothe\t the
\nsettlement with a binding character on all workmen.\n<\/p>\n
897<\/span><\/p>\n
We  may\t observe  here that we were  not  impressed  by\t the
\nappellant’s argument that r.58 sub-rule (2)(b) required that
\nthe  officer of a trade union of workmen must also  be\tduly
\nauthorised.   We,  however, do not  express  any  considered
\nopinion in view of our conclusion on other points.
\nIn  the result this appeal must be allowed and the  impugned
\norder  set  aside.  As the respondents\thave  conceded\tthat
\nthere  is  no compliance with r. 5 8 (4) the  settlement  in
\nregard\tto  the\t dispute referred  to  the  Tribunal,  must,
\ntherefore, be held to be illegal.  The case, has, therefore,
\nto go back to the Tribunal for adjudication upon the dispute
\non  the merits.\t The respondent should pay  the\t appellant’s
\ncosts in this Court.\n<\/p>\n
Y.P.\t\t\t      Appeal allowed.\n898<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Workmen Of M\/S. Delhi Cloth And … vs Management Of M\/S. Delhi Cloth And … on 17 October, 1969 Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 1851, 1970 SCR (2) 886 Author: I Dua Bench: Dua, I.D. PETITIONER: WORKMEN OF M\/S. DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS Vs. RESPONDENT: MANAGEMENT OF M\/S. DELHI CLOTH AND […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-226299","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nWorkmen Of M\/S. Delhi Cloth And ... vs Management Of M\/S. Delhi Cloth And ... on 17 October, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-vs-management-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-on-17-october-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Workmen Of M\/S. Delhi Cloth And ... vs Management Of M\/S. Delhi Cloth And ... on 17 October, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-vs-management-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-on-17-october-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1969-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-05T07:18:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-vs-management-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-on-17-october-1969#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-vs-management-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-on-17-october-1969\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Workmen Of M\\\/S. Delhi Cloth And … vs Management Of M\\\/S. Delhi Cloth And … on 17 October, 1969\",\"datePublished\":\"1969-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-05T07:18:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-vs-management-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-on-17-october-1969\"},\"wordCount\":3989,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-vs-management-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-on-17-october-1969#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-vs-management-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-on-17-october-1969\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-vs-management-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-on-17-october-1969\",\"name\":\"Workmen Of M\\\/S. Delhi Cloth And ... vs Management Of M\\\/S. Delhi Cloth And ... on 17 October, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1969-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-05T07:18:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-vs-management-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-on-17-october-1969#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-vs-management-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-on-17-october-1969\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-vs-management-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-on-17-october-1969#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Workmen Of M\\\/S. Delhi Cloth And … vs Management Of M\\\/S. Delhi Cloth And … on 17 October, 1969\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Workmen Of M\/S. Delhi Cloth And ... vs Management Of M\/S. Delhi Cloth And ... on 17 October, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-vs-management-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-on-17-october-1969","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Workmen Of M\/S. Delhi Cloth And ... vs Management Of M\/S. Delhi Cloth And ... on 17 October, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-vs-management-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-on-17-october-1969","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1969-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-05T07:18:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-vs-management-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-on-17-october-1969#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-vs-management-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-on-17-october-1969"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Workmen Of M\/S. Delhi Cloth And … vs Management Of M\/S. Delhi Cloth And … on 17 October, 1969","datePublished":"1969-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-05T07:18:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-vs-management-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-on-17-october-1969"},"wordCount":3989,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-vs-management-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-on-17-october-1969#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-vs-management-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-on-17-october-1969","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-vs-management-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-on-17-october-1969","name":"Workmen Of M\/S. Delhi Cloth And ... vs Management Of M\/S. Delhi Cloth And ... on 17 October, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1969-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-05T07:18:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-vs-management-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-on-17-october-1969#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-vs-management-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-on-17-october-1969"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-vs-management-of-ms-delhi-cloth-and-on-17-october-1969#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Workmen Of M\/S. Delhi Cloth And … vs Management Of M\/S. Delhi Cloth And … on 17 October, 1969"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226299","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=226299"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226299\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=226299"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=226299"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=226299"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}