Subject NOT available

click here for IIIF manifest

REGISTERED No. D. 221

The Gazette of India

EXTRAORDINARY

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 360] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1970/ASVINA 11, 1892

Separate paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed

as a separate compilation.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT AND REHABILITATION

(Department of Labour and Employment)

NOTIFICATION

New Delhi, the 3rd October 1970

S.O. 3272.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the National Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi in the industrial dispute between the em- ployers in relation to the Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 28th September, 1970.

BEFORE THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI

REFERENCE NO. NIT-1 OF 1969

REFERENCE NO. NIT-2 OF 1969

In the matter of industrial dispute between the Life Insurance Corporation of India, "Yogakshema", Madame Cama Road, Bombay, and their workmen as re- presented by: —

(1) All India Insurance Employees' Association, Calcutta. (2) All India National Life Insurance Employees' Federation, Bombay. (3) All India Life Insurance Employees' Association, Calcutta. (4) L.I.C. Higher Grade Assistants' Association, Calcutta.

AND

In the matter of (1) application No. Misc./NIT/27/70 dated the 22nd June, 1970 filed by the All India L.I.C. Stenographers' Association, (2) application No. Misc./

(1553)

NIT/30/70 filed on the 26th June, 19Y0 by ten Stenographers, (3) thlrty-thre'o ap- plications Nos. Mlsc/TvriT/40, 41, 42, 43, 44 45 4(5 48 49 50 51 52 53 55 56 57 58 59 60 81 82 63 65 86 67 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 and 76 of 1970 of Stenographers, (4) alp- plication No. Hisc/NIT/39/70 dated the 14th July, 1970 filed by All India Insur- ance Employees' Association and (5) application No. Misc/NIT/64/70 dated the 20Lb August, 1970 filed by All India life Insurance Employees' Association-

PRESENT;

The Hon'ble Shri D. S- Dave, retired Chief Justice, Rajasthan High Court, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES :

For the employer: —

Shri N. V. Phadke, Advocate, with Shri Anant Waman Dharwadkar, Assist- ant Secretary (Personnel), Life Insurance Corporation of India.

For the Worhrtien: —

Shri M. K- Eamamurthl, Advocate, with Shri S. N. Bhovmiik and Shri T. H, Chouhan on behalf "of AirfiflTia Insurance Employees' Association.

Shri V. C. Gopalkrishnan, with Shri N. Chakravorty and Shri Joginder Singh on behalf of All India National Life Insurance Employees' Federation.

Shri P. K. Bose, with Shri Sohan Lal and Shri N. K. Joshi on behalf of All India Life Insurance Employees' Association,

Shri L. N. Trikha, with Shri A. N. Kapur on behalf of L.I.C. Higher Grade Assistants' Association.

For the Petitioners In Applications Nos.

Misc/NIT/27, 30, 40 to 46, 48 to 53, 55 to 63 65 to 67 and 69 to 76 OI1970:

Shri P. S. Khera, Advocate, with Shri S. R. Iyer and Shri K. L. CEawIa.

For the Petitioners in Application No.

Misc./NIT/39/70:

Shri M. K. Ramamurthi, Advocate, with Shri S. N. Bhowmik.

For the petitioners in Application No.

Misc/NIT/64/70:

Shri P. K. Bose.

AWARD

Certain industrial disputes having arisen between the management of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), and their workmen (Class III and Class IV employees), two References were made by the Central Government by Notifications No. SO- 4299, dated the 28th November, 1968 and No. S.O. 3447, dated the 22nd August, 1969, and they were registered in this Tribunal as References No. NIT-1 of 1969 and No. NIT-2 of 1969 respectively. The parties to both the References arrived at a mutual settlement on the 20th June, 1970 and two Memorandums of Settlement were presented by them before the Tri- bunal Both the References were consolidated and Q consent award in terms of the said settlements was given by this Tribunal on the 13th July, '910 It has been published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary Part II, Section 3, Sub-sectaon (ii), dated the 22nd July, 1970. All the relevant facts relating to the disputes ending with the settlements have already been stated in the said Award and need not be repeated again, This Award may be read In continuation of the earlier one dated the 13th July, 1970, referred above.

All the Class III and Class IV employees of the Corporation excepting the Stenographers are covered by the said Award. The Stenographers includmg those who are in the scale of Higher Grade Assistants were excludedfrom the operation of that Award according to the orders of the Delhi High Court dated the 26th June, 1970 and 2nd July, 1970.

On the 22nd June, 1970 an application was presented on behalf of the All India JL.LC. Stenographers' Association (hereinafter referred to as 'AILICSA'), by ita President praying that the Tribunal should not pass any award against them in terms of the settlements dated the 20th June, 1970, that the AILICSA should be permitted to put up its case independently on merits, and that time may be allowed to it to file its statement of claim. This application was registered as No. Misc./ NIT/27/70.

On the 26th June, 1970, ten Stenographers presented another application, which has been registered as No, Misc./NIT/30/70. It was submitted by them in respect of Reference No. NIT-1 of 1969 that they were not aware of the terms on the basis of which the matters in dispute covered by the Reference insofar as the Steno- graphers were concerned were settJed and, therefore, it was prayed that they may be permitted to Me their objections to the settlements and be further permitted to Me fresh statement of claims in respecTrrf the disputes covered by the Reference- On the 14th July, 1970, an application was filed on behalf of the All India In- surance Employees' Association (hereinafter referred to as 'AIIEA'), by its General Secretary saying that the writ application of the Stenographers came for hearing before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court and that the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to pass an order on that day whereby it had vacated its earlier order restraining the Tribunal from giving its Award in respect of the Stenographers till July 15, 1970. It was prayed by the petitioner that in view of the subsequent order of the High Court dated the 14th July, 1970, referred above, this Tribunal should pass Us award in terms of the settlements in respect of the Stenographers as well, and that the applications of the Stenographers may be disposed of accordingly.

On the 18th July, 1970 a certified copy of the said Order of the Delhi High Court dated the 14th July, 1370 was received and It ran as follows: —

"The petition above mentioned (Civil Miscellaneous No. 1167-W/70) came up for hearing before this Court on th"e flth day of July, 11)70. UPON perusing the said petition and Searing counsel for the parties This Court Doth Order that the Tribunal may in the meanwhile, give the award hut it shall not be implemented in respect of Stenographers till the decision of the writ petition and this Court both further order that This would not prevent respondent No- 1 from giving the benefit of the award to those Stenographers who make an application in writing for this purpose to respondent No. 1.

And this Court Doth Lastly Order that this Order be punctually observed, obeyed and carried into execution by all concerned."

Thereafter, 11 applications signed by a number of Stenographers in the Central 'Office, Bombay and the Divisional/Branch Offices, Ahmedabad, Rajkot, Udipi, Jullundur, Bangalore, Coimbatore, Bhavriagar. Varanasi, Ajmer and Trivandrum were received and they have been registered as applications Nos. Mlsc./NIT/40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48 49 50 and 51 of 1970. All these 11 applications are in identical language. It appear? that after one application was drafted, cyclostyled copies were prepared and sent to Stenographers posted at different places. They were signed by the Stenographers and sent to the Tribunal by post.

All these applications were taken up on the 17th August, 1970 in the presence of the parties.

On that date, it was urged by learned" Counsel lor the AIIEA that the applica- tions filed by the AILICSA and other "ST<*hographers were not maintainable. This argument was also supported by learned Counsel for the Corporation and by the representatives of All India Life Insurance Employees' Association (hereinafter referred to as 'AILIEA'J and the L.I.C. Higher Grade Assistants' Association (here- inafter referred to as 'the LIC HGAA'). The representatives of the All India Na- tional Llfo Insurance Employees' Federation (hereinafter referred to as 'the AINLIEF'), adopted a neutral attitude and left it to the Tribunal to hear or not to hear the said applications.

Shri P. S. Khera, learned Counsel for the AILICSA as also for the Stenographers who had filed applications Nos. Misc/NIT/30 and 40 to 51 of 1970 (not including No. 47), submitted on thBt day that the preliminary objection raised on behali -of the Corp-oration, AIIEA, AILIEA and LIC HGAA and the applications of his clients on merits may be decided together. In applications Nos, Misc/NIT/27 /70 ;and Misc/NIT/30/70 it was not clarified as to what the AILICSA or the tea

Stenographers wanted to say on the merits of their case. Their only prayer ia those applications was to permit them to file their written statements. Their learned Counsel, after obatining instructions from his clients, submitted on the 17th August, 1970 that his clients wanted to confine their arguments on merits, only to those averments which were contained in the 11 applications Nos. Misc./ NIT|40 to 51 of 1970 (not including No. 47). The representatives of the Corpo- ration and the representatives of AIIEA, AILIEA, AINIEF and LIC HGAA were thereafter directed to file their replies to the said applications by the 27th August 1970 and to give copies of the replies to the learned Counsel for the AILICSA and Stenographers. By agreement of all the parties 31st August and 1st September, 1970 were fixed for hearing of these applications.

Meanwhile, 22 more applications from Stenographers posted at various other offices of the Corporation were received. They are verbatim copies -of the 11 applications referred above. They are registered as applications Nos. Misc./NIT/ 52; 53; 55; 56; 57; 58. 59, 59, 60, 61,' 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75 and 7ft of 1970. The total number of signatories to these applications and the eleven, applications received earlier is 337. They have all stated that at the time when. the statements of claims were filed before the Tribunal by the lour Unions, they were members of the AILICSA and were not members of any other union. They have further stated that they still continue to be members of he AILICSA. Thus, it is the AILICSA which is representing all these applicants.

One application dated the 20th August, 1970, was presented on behalf of AILIEA. It has been registered as No. Misc/NlT/64/70. In that application it was stated that a large number of applications in pursuance of the Delhi High- Court's revised order dated the 14th July, 1970 were made by Stenographers all over India and that indicates their eagerness to take the benefit of the revised: wages as given in the settlements of the 20th June 1970. It was alleged that dis- posal of such applications was being unnecessarily delayed by the Corporation and the Stenographers felt much aggrieved on that account. It was prayed that the Tribunal may grant an interim relief to such Stenographers. This applica- tion was also listed for hearing on the 31st August, 1970. The General Secretary of AILIEA who appeared on that day, referred to this application, but when it was realised that the case was going to be finally decided, the prayer for interim relief was not pressed and thus, this application has become infructuous.

The case put forward by the AILICSA is, that they had put in one applica- tion on the 15th January, 1969 before the Tribunal at Calcutta and another appli- cation dated the 22nd February, 1969 also before that Tribunal praying that it may be impleaded as a party to Reference No. NIT-1 of 1969, but those applica- tions were opposed by the Corporation. AIIEA, AILIEA and the AINLIEF, and, therefore both the applications were dismissed on the 15th April, 1969 It is pointed out that although these applications were dismissed, it was conceded by the representatives of tho Corporation and the other parties, that at the stage when the pay-scale of Stenographers; is considered, the representative of the AILICSA may be heard, if it is felt .by It that its interests are not properly watched by the three Associations on record. It was in that context that the President of tho AILICSA also conceded that it need not be impleaded and shown as a separate partv and that the Association would be satisfied if its representative is heard by the Tribunal when the pay-scale of Stenographers comes for con- sideration.

It is next pointed out that on the 15th May. 1970 the AILICSA presented an- other application before the Tribunal saying that bipartite negotiations between various Associations representing the employees and tho management of the Corporation were in progress at Bombay for some time that they had come to taw that an agreement" between the Associations find the management was in t h e " a^ that the management was Riving to the Stenographers, the grade ajid Special Pav which were not in conformity with their demands and, therefore iTwas pravrd that the Association would like their case to be anrued out before the Tribunal It is contended that although this application was dismissed on the 22nd May 1970 as the negotiations between the management and the Associa- tions had fai ed and the annlication had become infructunus aii t h a i s t a g e it was rmtpd bv the Tribunal while dismissing the application that the Association will teheard according' t.theprevious order dated the 15th April, 1&69 m case it will * 5fft v>S ft thnt its Interests were not proporlv watched bv the three Assoria- "nm On the hiiV of these \Z ord"r" dated the 15th April. 1969 and the 22nd Mnv 1970 it is ureedbv th- le°rnpfl Counsel for ATLTCSA that his clients' case Jnould be heard on merits by the Tribunal. According to the learned Counsel,.

the two agreements dated the 20th June, 1970 were not Dindlng on his clients as they were not parties to those agreements, and, therefore, the Tribunal should not gife its award in respect of them in terms of the said agreements. He has referred to the provisions of section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to us "the Act"), and argued thut a settlement arrived at by an agree- ment-between an employer and workmen otherwise than in conciliation proceed- ings is binding only on the parlies to the agreement and MIIUG the said settlements were arrived at, d@ hors conciliation proceedings, his clients could net be bound by them. In support of his arguments he has referred to certain cases which will be discussed at the appropriate r.tagc later on

On merits, the case put forward by the AILICSA and its above-noted members is, that after nationalisation of ii'.'e insurance business, the Corporation introduced the following pay-scales for its employees by its order dated the 24th December 1050: —

Rs. 90—300

Assistants Rs, 90—?oo 18 years Assistants 18 years

Rs, 90—300

Stenographers Rs, 90—300 18 years Stenographers 18 years

Clerks (including typists and stcno- Rs. 55—220 23 years Clerks (including typists and stcno- 23 years typists) typists)

Rs. 5j—220 (Rs. 25 additional (Rs. 25 additional special pay for special pay for stcno-typists ) stcno-typists )

The above pay-scales were revised with retrospective cllect from 1st September, 1956 by the Governmnt of India Order No. 1-3(1)Inu.(1J (5), dated the 1st June, 1957, as under: —

H i g h er G r a de Ai < ; •; M " . : -. ( ' P r e v i o u s ly

Ks. 140—410

Higher Grade Ai <;•; w-.r; ('Previously Ks. 140—410 21 years

21 years

Rs. 90—300

p •• 75—300

djjigaaicd as Ajiiiiiai-lii) dssigaaied as Ajiiiiiai-lii) 18 years S t e n o g r a p h e rs . . . .. Stenographers Rs. 90—300 iK years Assistants, Typ''ji'i (Prcvkv.'p'y d^;'j- 25 yeaiu Assistants, Typ"'ji'i (Previously d??;'j- p •. 75—300 25 yeais nated ac C\'l: < nated ac C\'l: <

T he petitioners' • I- ;.-.-r = '.. L ._.*„ ; iili-jugh by the said Order, which is popularly known as the *SL4 ;i,..,(".i-:sLi.:ii Order', the Assistants were redesignated as Higher Grade Assistants :n\d their pay-scolo was revised from Rs. 90—300 to Es 140—410; and the grade of Clerks including Typists, was also raised from Rs. 55—220 to Rs. 75—300 and they were given a better designation of Assistants, the pay-scales of Stenographers was not revised and it was left as before at Rs 90—300 only. The petitioners proceed to say that in January 1963 there was a bipartite com- promise settlement between the Corporation and the two Unions, namely AIIEA and AILIEA and by that settlement the Stenographers' pay-scales was revised from Us. 90—300 to Rs, 145—370, but the injustice done to the Stenographers by the Standardization Order dated the 1st June, 1957 was allowed to continue. At the time of arguments, it was explained that by this injustice they meant to point out that they were not given the same scale which was given to the Higher Grade Assistants by this settlement. Then, coming to the settlements dated the 20th June, 1970, it is pointed out by the petitioners that although their pay-scale was revised from Rs. 145—370 to Rs. 196—545 they have not been granted the scale of Rs. 245—650 which has been given to the Higher Grade Assistants. It Is also pointed out that the pay-scale of Assistant|Typist has been revised from Rs. 130—370 to Rs 170—500 and according to them they have received better benefits proportionate- ly. Thus, the first grievance of these petitioners la about the pay-scale.

It is next averred that their previous span of scale was 1& years but by the settlement of 20th June, 1970, the span of scale has been increased from 18 to 20 years and this has put them to great disadvantage.

Thirdly, it is pointed out that while a Functional Allowance of Rs. 25 p.m. was granted to Typists in the new settlement, the Stenographers have been granted a Special Pay of Rs. 201 p.m. only. According to them, their Special Pay should have been fixed at- Rs. 25 p.m.

Lastly, it is urged that while employees- of all other categories who have reach- ed the maximum in the old grade would be fitted in the maximum of the revised

grade one stage ldwer, in the case of the Stenographers who have reach- ed the maximum of the old grade they would be fitted three stages lower from -*jte maximum of the revised grade. It is contended that they are adversely affected by the fltting-in procedure as indicated in the fltting-in chart incorporated in the first Settlement of the 20th June, 1970 and the Stenographers who have reached- the maximum of the old grade should also be fitted one stage lower from the maximum in the revised grade.

i

From the other side, it is contended by learned Counsel for the Corporation and learned Counsel for AIIEA whose arguments have been adopted and supported by the representatives, oi the AILIEA and LICHGAA, also, that in view of the settle- ments arrived at between the parties on the 20th June, 1970, the orders of the Tri- bunal dated the 15th April, 1969 and 22nd May, 1970 are no longer of any avail to the AILICSA. It is urged that according to the said orders, the AILICSA could be permitted by the Tribunal to argue its case regarding the pay-scale, only if the Tribunal were called upon to determine the cases and give its award on mcrits- The parties, to the References having at the settlements, the disputes had, In fact, come to an end and the Tribunal's only function was to give an award in terms of. those agreements unless they were found to be invalid in law. It is contended that the AILICSA or its members had not made out any case to challenge the validity Of the two agreements. On the contrary, the AILICSA itself wanted an award from the Tribunal in terms of the two agreements on all other terms of Reference except the p^ay-scale including the Special Pay as applicable to them. It is urged that their applications were not maintainable.

It is not disputed by them that according to section 1B(1) of the Act an agree- ment de hors conciliation proceedings was binding only on the parties to the agree- ment. It is, however, urged that the contention of the AILICSA to the effect that they were not parties to the agreement Is wholly incorrect. It is pointed out by them that the industrial disputes which were the subject of the two References were raised by AIIEA, AILIEA and the AINLIEF and it was on account of the Charter of Demands presented by them that the Referneees were made to the Tribunal. Then, it is pointed out that according to the version of the AILICSA itself, it was an affiliated unit of the AINLIEF which was a party to the proceedings before this Tribunal. It was because of the fact that the AILICSA was already represent- ed by the AINLiEF that the Tribunal had dismissed its application to be impleaded as a separate party. The AINLIEF thus continued to represent the AILICSA till. the final settlement and since both the agreements of 20th June, 1970 were signer! by the AINLIEJT, the AILICSA Including its members who were represented by it, were bound by Hie said agreements and they could not rcsilo from them.

It is also urged that the AILICSA alone did not represent all the Stenographers, On Its own showing, it. represents at the most 655 out of the total number of 781 Stenographers. The remaining Stenographers and certain members ol the AILICSA also were represented by AIIEA and the AILIEA and they were certainly bound, by the agreements whif'h were signed by these two Associations. The Tribunal could not fix two scales for Stenographers that Is, one for those who are repiesent- ed by these two Associations and the other for those who are represented by the AILICSA and for this reason also, the applications of the AILICSA and the other Stenographers for hearing the case on merits are not maintainable.

Then, without conceding the stand taken by them about the maintainability of the applications filed by the AILICSA and the other Stenographers, it is urged that the case put forward by them on merits is wholly untenable. It is pointed out that the post of a Higher Grade Assistant was a promotion post to w.hich the Stenographers were as much eligible as other employees who were categorised as Assistants- It is pointed out that some Stenographers were promoted to that scale only on the basis of their experience and the Stenographers so promoted continued to be called Stenographers in the scale of Higher Grade Assistants. According to them, there were about 98 or 100 such Stenographers already enjoy- ing the scale of Higher Grade Assistants. Then there was an equal number of Stenographers who were promoted as Higher Grade Assistants because they had acquired requisite qualifications by passing the prescribed examinations. They were full-fledged Higher Grade Assistants and were doing technical work in different spheres.

It is pointed out that the AILICSA was wholly wrong In saying that all Assis- tants were promoted to the grade of Higher Grade Assistants after the Standardi- zation Order was promulgated. Only those who could be promoted according to the promotion procedure, which was laid down for all employees, were promoted to that scale and, in that way, no exception was made in the case of Stenographers.

In other words, those Stenographers who were found fit for promotion were also promoted. It Is urged that there was no justification for giving to the Steno- graphers the scale which was prescribed for the Higher Grade Assistants. It is pointed out that, in fact, the Stenographers were given, the most generous treat- ment as their existing scale of Rs. 145—370 was raised to Rs. 1U6—545. It ia next pointed out that the Stenographers were receiving a Special Pay of Rs. 1C p.m. so far and it was raised to Rs, 20 p.m. in the new agreement. Thus, the total difference in the scale of Stenographers between the minimum and the inaximum (inclusive of Special Pay) was RE. 61 and Rs. 185, which was the highest, in com- parison with Higher Grade Assistants, Section Heads and Assistants in the revised scales as shown below:

Basic Pay

Difference

Existing Revised

at at Category

Min. Max.

Min, Max.

Max.

Min.

4 80

190

170

650

245

55

160

4 10

2 10

50

585

175

216

61

185

380

155

565

Higher Grade Assistants Section Head Stenographers

(incl. sp. pay of

R". 20)

(incl. sp. pay of Rs. 10)

1 70

500

1 30

130

Assistants

370

4°

,Regarding the Special Pay, it is contended that the Stenographers could not make any legitimate grievance simply because the Functional Allowance given to the Typists was raised from Rs. in p.m. to Rs. 25 p-m. in the new agree- ments. It is pointed out that the Typists were given a raise of Rs. 10 p.m. only and this Functional Allowance did not carry with it other benefits, that is, tho Typists could not cam Dearness Allowance, Bonus or Gratuity on the Functional Allowance. It is stressed that the Stenographers were also given a raise of Rs. 10 p.m. in their Special Pay. It is pointed out that, in fact, the Special Pay of Rs. 20 was equivalent toi Rs. 36i p.m. because it also carried benefit of Dearness Allowance to the extent of Rs. 12 and Rs. 4 for Bonus and Provident Fund and thus the Stenographers were actually given higher benefits in comparison to the Typists.

Regarding the grievance about the span of scale raised by the Stenographers, it is pointed out that it had to be increased from 18 to 20 years as the maximum of the scale was raised to Rs. 545. If with this revised maximum the span were retained at 18 years as before, the Stenographers would have earned higher annual increments than the Higher Grade Assistants. There could be no justification for giving higher ann,ua] increments in a lower scale in comparison to the higher scale.

About the last objection relating to the fltting-in procedure, it is pointed out that a uniform treatment was given to all the employees and there was no discri- mination in the case of Stenographers. Since the span of the Stenographers' scale was raised from 18 to 20 years, those who had reached the maximum in the exist- ing scale could only be placed three stages lower from the maximum of the revised grade. Thus, according t0 their arguments, there was no substance on merits also in tho case put up by the AILICSA. It is prayed by them that an award may be given in respect of all the Stenographers in terms of the two agreements as has oeen done in the case of all other categories of Class III and Class IV employees of the Corporation.

The questions which arise for determination are: —

(1) Whether the Stenographers are bound by the two agreements dated the 20th June, 1970 arrived at between the Corporation and the AIIEA, AILIEA, AINLIEF and the LIC HGAA7

(2) whether the applications of the AILICSA and the other stenographers to be heard on the merits of the case are not maintainable?

(3) In case the above two points are decided in favour of AILICSA, whether the grievances about the Stenographers pay-scale, Special Pay, span of scale and fltting-in procedure are justified and, if so, what relief or reliefs they are entitled to?

The above points may be taken up seriatim.

Before commencing the discussion on the first point, it would be p-roper tp reproduce here, section 18 and section 36(1) of the Act as also Rule 37 of the! Industrial Disputes (Central) Bules, 1957. They run as follows:—

"Section 18

18. (1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workman otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.

(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), an arbitration award which has become enforceable chall be binding on the parties to the agreement who referred the dispute to arbitration.

(3) A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings under this Act or an arbitration award in a case where a notification haw been issued under sub-section (3A) of section 10A or an award of a Labour Court, the Tribunal or National Tribunal which has become enforceable shall be binding on—

(b) all other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings as parties

(b) all other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings as parties to the dispute, unless the Board, arbitrator, Labour Court, Tri- bunal or National Tribunal, as tho case may be, records the opin- ion that they wore so summoned without proper cause;

(c) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is an employer, his heirs, successors or assignees in respect of the establishment to which the dispute relates;

(d) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is composed of workmen, all persons who were employed in the eslafcVrJunent or part of the establishment, as the case may be, to which the dispute relates on the date of the dispute and all persons who subsequently become employed in that establishment or part."

"Section 36(1)

(1) A workman who is a party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represent- ed in any proceeding under this Act by—

(a) an officer of a registered trade union of which he is a member;

(b) an officer of a federation of trade unions to which the trade union

referred to in clause (a) is affiliated;

(c) where the worker is not a member of any trade union, by an officer of any trade union connected with, rtr by any other workman employed in, the industry in which the worker is employed and authorized in such manner as may be prescribed."

"Hute 37 37. Parties bound by acts of representative.—A party appearing by a repre- sentative shall be bound by the acts of that representative."

It is obvious from the perusal of section 18(1) of the Act that If a settlement la arrived at by mutual agreement between the employer and the workmen otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceedings, it shall be binding only on the parties to the agreement. According to sub-section (3) of section 18 if a settlement is arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings under the Act, it is binding on all the parties to the industrial dispute. Thus, a settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workmen de hors concilia- tion proceedings shall not be binding on parties other than those who are parties to the agreement. In the present case, the two settlements were arrived at (by agreement between the Corporation on the one part and ALIEA. AINLIEF, AHJEA and LIC HGAA on the other side and, therefore, they would be binding on all those employees of the Corporation who were represented by these trade unions and Federations. It has already been held in the earlier Award that all Class III and Class IV employees of the Corporation except the Stenographers were bound by the agreements. An Award was not given in respect of the Stenographers 'because some of them had raised an objection that the settlement was not acceptable to them and just when their applications darted the 22nd

June, 1970 and 26th June, 1970 were taken up for hearing, they obtained a stay order in a writ application from the Delhi High Court, The question whether thETSStenographers were bound by the said agreements was not determined in that Award in pursuance of the Orders of the Delhi High Court dated the 26th June, jL970 and the 2nd July, U'70. It may be noted here, that all the StenoA grapaors have not come before the Tribunal to challenge the two agreements of the 20th June, IS'JU. The AIliSA and AILIEA have claimed that a large number (if Stenographers were represented by them. The number oi such, employees is not certain L>ut whatever the exact number of Stenographers represented by thfihe two Associations may be, th&y would undoubtedly be bound by the said two agreements. No challenge has been thrown on their behalf and, therefore, an award will have to be given in respect of them in terms of the settlements. The question xor determination really is, whether the Stenographers represented by AILICSA are hound by the said [settlements or not. In the 3G applications filed by 337 ethnographers, iL is contended that they were members of the AILICSA and of no other Association. By saying that they were not members of any other Association they can be taken to be correct only to the extent that they were not members of AIIEA, AILIEA and LIC HGAA. They have not speciri'jally pleaded that they were not represented iby AINLIEF and even if they had taken that ground, it could not have been allowed. It is not disputed by the AILICSA that it wa3 affiliated to the AINLIEF. The argument put for- ward on behalf of the Corporation as also on behalf of the AIIEA, AINLIEF, AILIEA and LIC HGAA is, thfit the AILICSA was yfflliatcd to the AINLIEF; that the AIIMLIEF continued to represent all the members of the AILICSA and since the AINLIEF was a party to the agreement, a)l the Stenographers who are members' of the AILICSA were equally bound by the settlements. From the otbcv side, tlio prgument advanced on behalf of the AILICSA is, that although it was affiliated to the AJNLIEF, its members were not bound by the settlements because it wanted to have its own say from the timo it presented its application on the 15th January, 1969 and it was ordered by the Tribunal on the 15th April, 1969 that its representative will be heard when the pay-scale of Stenographers romes for consideration. We have, therefore, first to see as to what is the effect of the orders of the Tribunal dated the 15th April, 1969 and the 22nd May, 1970, in this >half.

It is true that the A1LTCSA presented one application on the 15th January, 1969 before the Notional Tribunal p.t Calcutta to be implcaded as a party and another application dat:d ine 2"nd February, 1969 before that Tribunal to the same effect, but when these two applications were taken up on the 15th April, I960, they were htrrriKly "^-'iscd not unly bv the Corporation but also by the AIIEA, .AILIEA and AINLf^F. In the reply which WHS filed by the Corpora- tion, it was averred that tbo applicants represented only a negligible percent- age of the tolfd number of employees and that too only of a small section in a single category of workmen, that the three parties specified in the Reference represented all categories of Class III and Class IV employees including the Stenographer?, that the AILICSA was itself affiliated t0 AINLIEF, that the members of AILICSA were thus already represented by AINLIEF, and there was no warrant for addition of a sectional representative as a separate party to the dispute. It was also averred that this would lead to multiplicity of pro- ceedings and involve unnecessary delay in the adjudication of the demarls of the workmen. In the reply filed by AIIEA aL-o, it was submitted that AILICSA being an affiliated unit of AINLIEF, and the AINLIEF being a party to the pro- ceedings, the members of AILICSA were fully represented by AINLIEF and there was no need to grant it a separate representation. It was also urged that if affiliated units of the federal associations are allowed to be parties to the proceedings separately, there would bo mult:pulicity of representations, there would toe large number of parties to represent various sections of employees and the whole proceedings will be delayed. This Association itself was a fede- ration and, therefore, it had reasons to oppose the AILICSA's application because if the Stenographers application were allowed, the units of AIIEA might have also filed similar applications and then there would have been unnecessary- delay and multiplicity of proceedings. Another objection raised by the AIIEA was that the Charter of Demands alleged to have been made by AILICSA on the management was, according to its own admission, never subject of concilia- tion proceedings and that it was never made a party to any conciliation pro- ceedings. In other words, Its contention was that the AILICSA could not be impleaded as a separate party independent of the AINLIEF which hnd espoused its cause and raised the industrial disputes referred to the Tribunal. In the face of this opposition, and the support given to these arguments by learned Counsel for AINLIEF, the President of the AILICSA, who appeared on the 15th April, 1969, conceded that the Association need not be impleaded and shown as a separate party. The President of the Association never took the stand that

the AINLIEF, which was already a party to the proceedings, waa not its repre- sentative. It is true that the contending parties conceded on that day that^at the stage when the pay-scale of Stenographers is to be considered, the repre- sentative of the AILICSA may be heard in case it is felt by the Association that its interests were not properly watched toy the three Associations w&o are already parties before the Tribunal. But, it may be observed that this" con- cession was made as a gesture of their good-will towards the Association or by way of, what may be called, ex abundantl cautela, to give an assurance to the members of AILICSA that the three Associations were alive to the Steno^ graphers' interests and they will not be failing in their efforts to promote them, but, if the Association had anything further to say about their pay-scale, it may be heard. It may ibe added that even if the other Associations had not conceded in favour of the AILICSA that it may be heard about pay-scale of Steno- graphers at the sta'ge of arguments, the applications of the AILICSA would have been dismissed firstly on the ground that it could not be impleaded as a sepa- rate party independent of the AINLJEF which had espoused its cause and raised the industrial dispute which led to the References before the Tribunal. The legal position in this behalf has already been discussed in the earlier Award and the same arguments need not be repeated. Secondly, AILICSA was itself a representative which as a trade union could represent its members undeii section 36(1) (a). But when its members were already represented by AINLIEF under section 36(1) (b), there was no justification for a second representation. At any rate, AILICSA could not be impleaded as a separate party in the face of opposition from AINLIEF, so long as it continued to be affiliated to it.

It la further noteworthy that the concession referred above was only about the pay-scale of the Stenographers and not about other terms of reference. In the first Reference, revision of pay-scale was only one of the six Items mentioned in the Schedule. In the Second Retference, there were 7 Items, and, therefore, It cannot be said that on account of the said concession the capacity of the AINLIEF to function as a representative of the AILICSA cearaed to exist. On the contrary, the AINLIEF continued to represent the AILICSA and its members and no objection was raised about Its authority by the Associa- tion for about a year when the proceedings continued before the Tribunal. On, the 15th May, 1970, the President of AILICSA presented an application before the Tribunal saying that bipartite negotiations between the various Associations representing the L.I.C. employees and the management were in progress in Bombay, that the AILICSA had watched those negotiations with profound concern, that an agreement was in the offing between the Associations and the management, that the scale and Special Fay proposed to be given to the Stenographers by that (agree- ment were not in conformity with their original demand and, therefore, it v/as pray- ed that their case may be argued out before the Tribunal. This application camS for hearing on the 22nd May, 1370. It was submitter} on that day by all the parties that the negotiations had failed. The above application was presented only because of the negotiations which were proceeding earlier. The negotiations having failed, the References were again taken up by the Tribunal for hearing and, therefore, the application filed by the AILICSA on the basis of the negotiations which were going on earlier had become mfructuous. That application was, therefore, dismissed. The Tribunal while dismissing the application made a remark that the President of the AILICSA may appear before the Tribunal and make his submissions about the grade of the Stenographers when the case comes for arguments, if, as observed in the order of the Tribunal dated the 15th April, 1969, it was felt by the AILICSA that its interest^ were not properly watched by the three Associations. If settlements dated the 20th June, 1970 were not made and the case had proceeded before the Tribunal and if it were required to deter- mine both the References on merits, the AILICSA could come before the Tribunal In pursuance of this order and the earlier order dated the 15th April, 1969. That situation, however, did not arise because the parties again started negotiations and they arrived at the two settlements, which are reproduced in the earlier Award. It is noteworthy that even in the application dated Ithe 15th May, 1970. It was reiterated by the AILTCSA In the very first paragraph that "the Steno- graphers' Association ig affiliated to All India National Life Insurance Emclovees' Federation (INTUC)". Thus, it was admitted in very clear language even by that time, that the AILICSA was only one of the affiliated units of the AINLIEF. It was never alleged that the authority of the AINLIEF to represent It was taken away.

Since the AILICSA continued to be represented by the AINLIEF and the AINLIEJT arrived at the settlements as Its representative, both the agreements are

binding on this Association and its members. The order of the Tribunal dated tlfe 15th April, 1969 was one of dismissal of the application and the AIUCSA was never treated as a separate party. The subsequent order Qf the 22nd May, 1970 was $dso one oi dismissal of the application. So, as the AINLIEF continued to represent the members of the AILICSA, they were bound by the agreements signed by It.

It may be observed that If there were no reference before the Tribunal and the AINLILf had entered into a settlement with the Corporation on behalf oX the AILICSA, the latter would have been bound by it and none of its members would have been able to urge successfully that the settlements were not binding on Ihem because of the provisions of section 18(1) of the Act. This position did not change because of the References before the Tribunal. Rather the provisions of Rule 37 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules made the acts of the AINLIEJF all the more binding on them. They cannot thus wriggle out of the settlements.

It was contended by learned Counsel for the AILICSA at the time of final arguments on the 31st August, 1970 that the AILICSA had disafflllated itseU from the AINLIEF before the AINLIEF's representative signed the agreements and that, therefore, the settlements were not binding on it.

It was vehemently urged by learned Counsel for the Corporation and also by the representatives of AIIEA, AILIEA and LIC HGAA that this argument should not be allowed to be raised because the question whether the AILICSA had dis- affiliated itself from the AINLIEF before the settlements were signed and whether thart; dlsafflliation was valid in law is a mixed question of law and fact, that this ground was never taken by the AILICSA in Its application nor did It find any mention in any application of the Stenographers. In reply to this objection it was contended by learned Counsel for the AILICSA that In the proceedings of the 26th June, 1070 it was admitted by Shri Gopaikrishnan, appearing for the AINLIEF, that the AILICSA got Itself dlsaffillated from the AINLIEF on the 20th June, 1970 before the settlements were signed, that the letter regarding disafflliatlon was received by the AINLIEF at 4 P.M. while the settlements were signed at about 6.30 P.M. or 7.00 P.M. It is argued that the fact of disafflliatlon is already on record and, therefore, his clients have a right to raise this point. It may be observed that on the said date (2tith June, 1970) the application of the AILICSA dated the 22nd June, 1970 was taken up. The representatives appearing for the other Associations were asserting that a large number of Stenographers were members of their Associations and, therefore, the Tribunal considered it proper to note down their versions in writing. It was submitted by the representative of the AIIEA that 40 per cent of the Stenographers were members of their Associa- tion. Similarly, it was submitted by Shrl P. K. Bose on behalf of the AILIEA that 40 per cent of the Stenographers were members of their Association. When Shri Gopaikrishnan, appearing for the AINLIEF was also questioned, he stated that the AILICSA was affiliated to the AIELIEF at the time when the Statement of Claim was filed and art that time the membership of that Association was 655. At that stage, he volunteered a further statement tp the effect that the AILICSA had got itself disafflllated on the 20th June, 1970 about 2i hours or 3 hours before the settlements were signed. Shri Chawla, Joint Secretary of the AILICSA also stated on that day that it was true that when the Statement of Claim was filed by the AINLIEF, the AILICSA was affiliated to It but their Association got itself disafflllated from the AINLIEF on the 20th June, 197i0. These facts were noted by the Tribunal but before it could proceed further, it was submitted by the President of the AILICSA that their Counsel had filed a writ before the Delhi High Court and got an interim stay order. The case was, therefore, adjourned by the Tribunal. Thus, it is true that Shrl Gopaikrishnan and Shri Chawla both stated on that day that the AILICSA had got itself disafflllated from the AINLIEF shortly before the settlements were signed, but neither the learned Counsel for the Corporation nor the representatives of the AITEA, AILIEA or LIC HGAA were required to give their reply about this averment nor had they any occasion to cross-examine Shri Gopaikrishnan or Shrl Chawla.

The learned Counsel for the Corporation, PIS also the representatives of AIIEA, AILIEA and LIC HGAA are correct in their stand that neither in the appli- cation of the AILICSA nor In any application of the Stenographers a ground was raised to the effect that the AILICSA was not i-ound by the settlements because it had got Itself disafflliated from the AINLITCF It may be remarked that the AILICSA had not shown In its earlier applications as to what concrete case it wanted to put up before the Tribunal. Their only prayer was that the Tribunal

should withhold sanction to the settlements and the AILICSA should be allowed to plead Its case Independently on merits. When the matter came before tl" Trlounal on the 17th August, 1970 and this lacuna was pointed out, the submission which was made on their behalf was that they would confine their arguments to the averments which were made in the 11 applications of the Stenographers It has to be remarked with regiet that the AILICSA did not care to dralt'and tile its awn application giving the grounds on which tiie settlements dated the auth June, 1970 were not considered to be binding on it. Only a copy of the applica- tion filed by the 11 Stenographers was given to the contending parties and since there WJS no aJic&ation oi disailiUaiion in any ol them, neither the Corpora- tion nor the representatives ol AIIEA, AILIEA and LIC HC-AA hud occasion to reply to it. The learned Counsel for the Stenographers has taken this fresh legal plea about disaihliaUon. at the time of final arguments to save his clients from the agreements and the contending parties are not unjusLifled in meeting it by a similar technical objection to the etfect that a plea which i3 not found in the pleadings cannot be raised, specially when the A101CSA was assisted by a learned Counsel and such a ground could be taken in Ihe applicacoin whose copies were given to the opposite parties on the 17th August, 1970

It was urged by the learned Counsel for AILICSA that It was a simple case of a principal revoking the authority of its agent. In reply it was contended by learned Counsel fur the Corporation and AIIiiA, AILIEA aind LIC HGAA that the learned Counsel had over-simplified liis contention. It was urged that AILICSA or any of its member had nut even stated as to who had delivered the so called letter of disaJiUation and whether the person who delivered that letter cr signed it had any authority to dlsaiiiHate the AILICSA from the AINLIEF. Further, it could not be said without that document on record whether it was just a threat of disafliliation to impress upon the AIN1JEF that it should continue its efforts vigorously or it wag for disaffiliation altogether. It was further urged that the question of dlsafflliation could not be decided without looking into the constitution of the AILICSA and also that of the AINLIEF. It wa3 lastly contended that, at any rate, neither the Corporation nor other parties were informed before the agreements were (signed that the AILTCSA had disafflliated itself from the AINLIEF. that the AINLIEF was not competent to enter into an agreement on behalf of the AILICSA, and, therefore, the secret revocation of AINLIEF's authority (If any) could not alTect the agreements.

It may be observed thnt the Corporation and representatives of AIIEA and AILIEA are¹ correct in saying that no care was taken to place on record the letter relating to dlswittllation (if there was any) which is said to have been given by the AILICSA to the AINLIEF on the 20th June, 1970. It was admitted by the representative of the AINLIEF at the time of arguments before the Tribunal, that neither the Corporation nor other Associations were,Informed by them about this letter before the agreement^ were sighed. AILICSA also did not Inform the Corporation or AILIEA or AIIEA about the. so called disaffiliation before the agreements were signed. The AINLIEF appears to have taken no notice oi 1W3 alleged disafliliation and it proceeded to sign the two agreements. Whether there was actual disaffiliation or only a threat of disaffiliation cannot be determined without seeing the document itself. Similarly, )t cannot be determined whether there was a valid disafflliatlon according to law, without looking Into the consti- tutions of the AILICSA and the AINLIEF, which have not been placed on record. Since the ground of disafliliation was never raised in any application and It cannot be determined by the Tribunal without any material on record, it cannot be allowed.

Moreover, it is a well-established principle of the law of agency that if a person employs another as an agent in a character which Involves a particular authority, he cannot divest him of that authority secretly from third parties and If an agent in such a situation has done or Incurred obligations to third persons on behalf ol his principal, the principal is bound by such acts or obligations The AILICSA did not care to inform the Corporation and the other Associations that it has revoked the authority of the AINLIEF to enter into an agreement and, the Cor- poration believed that the AINLIEF continued to be the representative of the AILICSA In fact and In law by the time, it signed both the settlements The AILICSA Is therefore, bound bv that agreement. There ls thus no force In this argument also of the learned Counsel for AILICSA.

Since AINLIEF was a larger and superior body as compared to AILICSA which wafone of its affiliates and it entered Into the two agreements dated the 20th June, WTO with the Corporation, AILICSA ar,n its members are bound by them.

J%int No 1 is decided against the* AILICSA and all the Stenographers who have presented their applications before the Tribunal.

Coming to the next point regarding the maintainability of the various appli- cations of the AILiCSA and Stenographers, it follows as a corollary that 11 the two settlements are binding on the AILICSA and petitioner-Stenographers, the applications ior hearing their case on "merits are not maintainable. The Main ground which was taken in tho applications about their maintainability was based on the two orders of tho Tribunal daited the 15th April, 1969 and thB 22nd May, 1970. It has already been discussed above that after tho greements, they are of no avail to the petitioners. On their basis, the AILICSA could ask for 'the indul- gence of the Tribunal to hear its President in additional to AlNLIEF's represen- tative (but not in opposition to him) if the parties had not arrived at a settlement and the Tribunal were called upon to decide both the References on merits. Since the AINLIEF and the Corporation arrived at the settlements and the agreements made by them are binding on the AILICSA, the present applications are not main- tainable.

It remains now to discuss the cases which have been citod by learned Counsel for AILICSA in this matter.

The earliest case cited by him is Rentes Industries Limited TO. Brijnandan Pandey and others (1956 II LLJ 444). He has drawn the attention of tho Tribunal to the following observations appearing therein:—

"The discretion which an industrial tribunal has must be exercised in accord- ance with well-recognized principles. There is undoubtedly a distinc- tion between commercial and industrial arbitration. As has been pointed out by Ludwlg Teller (Labour Disputes and Collective Bar- gaining, Vol.1 p. 536):

'Industrial! arbitration may involve the extension of an existing agreement, or the making of a new one, or in general the creation of new obli- gations or modifications of old ones, while commercial arbitration federallyconcerns itself with interpretation of existing obligations and disputes relating to existing agreements.¹

A court of law proceeds on the footing that no power exists in the courts to make contracts for people; and the parties must make their own contracts. The courts reach their limit of power when they enforce contracts which the parties have made. An industrial tribunal Is not so fettered and may create new obligations or modify contracts in the interests of industrial peace, to protect legitimate trade, umon activities and to prevent unfair practice or victimization. We cannot, nowever accept the extreme position canvassed oefore us that an in- K t r T^ t S al can ignore altogether an existing agreement or (existing obligations for no rhyme or r ason whatsoever

In that case tho Labour Appellate Tribunal, Cacutta has dismissed an application

mmmmmmm

fart, the snid observations have no V£" Tn^Vfri^l Trf final were not so fettered While their Lordships observed that 1he Industrial •£ lmal ^ ^ th as the regular courts ot law m ™e sphere n i™ industrial tribunal

^ X g WS& r £he ^ n T a l ^ r^ S i n, obligations without any

reason.

The next case referred by the learned Counsel is between Niemla Textile Finishing Mills, Ltd., and others and Serond Punjab Tribunal and others (1U57 I LLJ 460). He has referred in particular to the following observations made in the said case;—

"The industrial cdurts are to adjudicate on the disputes between employers a"nd their workmen, etc, and in the course of such adjudication they must determine the 'rights' and 'wrongs' of the claims made, and in so doing they are undoubtedly free to apply Ihe principles of justice, equity and good conscience, keeping in view the further principle that their jurisdiction is invoked not for the enforcement of mere contractual rights but for preventing labour practices regarded as unfair and for restoring industrial peace on the basis of collective bargaining. The process does not cease to be judicial by reason of that elasticity or by reason of the application of the principles of justice, equity and good conscience."

In the above case it was contended before their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in the first instance, that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act were violatlv© of the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, since they left it open to the appropriate Government to differentiate between the parties similarly placed and circumstanced in every respect and in the absence of anyjrules, the appropriate Government had unregulated and arbitrary powers to discriminate between the parties. This contention was repelled by their Lord- ships- It was next contended that the. Industrial Tribunal to whom industrial disputes were referred by the appropriate Government were legislating in the guise of adjudication and this amounted to the delegation of the powers of legislation which it was not competent for the Central legislature to do. This argument was also rejected by their Lordships and the said observations were in that conii xt. They have no direct bearing on the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Learned Counsel has also referred to the case between the Associated Cement Companies Limited and Their Workmen (19G0 I LLJ 491). In that case their Lordships of the Supreme Court were considering the scope of section 19(0) of the Industrial Disputes Act and whether it was open to a minority of workmen or a minority union to terminate the award. No question about the termination of award by a notice under section 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act is involved in the present case. Moreover, it may be pointed out that the legislature has in its wisdom, annulled the effect of the said decision by adding sub-section (7) in section 19 by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1964- Sub-section (7) now provides that no notice given under sub-section (2) or sub-section (6) of section 10 shall have effect unless it Is given by a party representing the majority of persons bound by the settlement or award, as the case may be. It is, therefore, no longer open to a minority of workmen to terminate the settlement or award by giving a notice.

Reference has also been made to the case between Simpson and Company, Limited, Secunderabad and State of Andhra Pradesh and others (1960 I LLJ 611). The learned Counsel has, In particular, referred to the following observations made therein: —

"It is well known and cardinal principle of "ludicial procedure that a party should be found to be in the wrong unless it had been heard and all reasonable opportunities within the confines of law have been granted to it."

There can be no two opinions regarding the said principle which is of a general nature. In that case the Labour Court had proceeded to declare the Company ex-parte and the validity of Its order was challenged by a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. It xvas found by the learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Courl that the order of the Labour Court in setting the Company ex-parte and purporting to proceed with the enquiry on that footing was wrong, and that Mr. Ramalinga Ayyar and Mr. Mascarenhas who had appeared before the Labour Court were perfectly entitled to appear and defend the Company as the former was a whole-time paid employee of the Company and the latter was the Manager of its Secunderabad Branch and they did not suffer from any disability. In the present case no order was ever passed against any party without hearing ft or ita representative and so the case cited is of no particular help to the petitioners.

The next case to which reference Is made is, Coimbatore District Mill Workers' Union and Dhanalakshmi Mills, Ltd., Tiruppur, and others (1960 II LLJ 556). In

that case there was a dispute between the management of 32 mills in Coimbatore and the workmen employed therein In regard to the bonus payable for certain years. The State Government referred the ditjpute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Coimbatore. During the course of proceedings, three unions which were represented by the IN.T.U.C. entered into an agreement with the management In respect of bonus for the years 1949 to 1952. The Tribunal passed an award in terms of the said agreement. The Coimbatoie District Mill Workers' Union raised an objection before the Tribunal that it was not consulted by the management while entering into the compromise and, therefore, it was not bound by it. This objection was turned down by the Tribunal, pn a writ application by the Coimba- tore District Mill Workers' Union it was observed by the learned Judge of the Madras High Court that "a compromise by a few cannot, therefore, amount to a settlement of the dispute for a compromise can only bind those who are parties to it'. As already observed, the proposition that a settlement de hors conciliation proceedings is binding only on the parties to the settlement, is Qot disputed by the opposite side. This position or law is indisputable because of the clear provisions of section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It may, however, be pointed out that in the said case it was found by the learned Judge that the Coimbatore District Mill Workers' Union had participated in the antecedent conciliation proceedings which culminated in the reference under section 10 of the Act; and that it had been taking active interest in the proceedings before the Tribunal; It had filed claims on behalf of the workers; and the Tribunal itself issued notice of the hearing to the petitioner. It was on account of these circumstances that the learned Judge observed that it could not be bound by the agreement to which it was never invited. In the present case, it has already been pointed out above that the AILICSA was represented by the A1RDIEF, that the latter was a party to the settlements, and, therefore, it follows that the AILICSA whom It represented and the members thereof were bound by the agreements.

The learned Counsel has next referred to the case between the Workers of Buckingham and Carnatic Company (by Binny and Buckingham and Carnatie Company Employees' Union and Madras Textile Workers' Union) and Commissioner of Labour and Chief, Conciliation Officer and others (1964 I LL..I 253). In that case it was observed as follows: —

"A trade union can and does only represent Its members. When it enters Into an agreement with the management, it can do so oniy on behalf of its members. Sub-section (1) to S. 18 Is, as. we said, intended merely to make It binding on the workers represented by it. There is nothing in the section to justify an extended meaning being given to it contrary to the ordinary law that a contract will bind only those that are parties to It, Likewise, S,13(3)(a) can refer only to the actual parties to the settlement or award. Thus S.I8 makes, a distinction between a case of settlement without the aid of the recognized official agency and one arrived at with the help cf it or which is the result of an adjudication by a tribunal functioning under the Act. Th^ former will bind only the parties thereto; the latter, all the workers whether parties or not. It Jollows that an agreement between one union and the management without recourse to conciliation proceedings will only bind the members of that union and not on all the workmen."

I have already made it clear that I am in respectful agreement with the said observations.

- i. HJ h a? a ¹ so r e f e r r ed to the case between Bihar Journals, Limited, Patna and Chaudhun (H.K.) and another (19H6 I LLJ 789) and relied on the foPowlng observa- tion appearing therein: —

"Apart from the modes of representation prescribed in Sub-sec, (1) or (2) of S.3G of the Act, the employer or the workman himself can certainly appear and conduct his case before the tribunal. Section 30 will be no bar to that. Every person has got a fundamental and substantial right to appear m person and conduct his case before a court or a tribunal. Denial of that right will be denial of fundamental justice It is now well-settled and neither of the parties before us dispute that an employer as well as an employee between whom an industrial dispute has arisen and has been referred to the tribunal, can appear in person to conduct his case."

Industrial Tri^i™? t ^e C& °n™ as™is?? on b e half of the management before the industrial Tribunal that the Vice-President of the workers union should not be

permitted to appear as he was a lawyer. That objection was turned down by the Tribunal on the around that he was qualified to represent the union under section 36(l)(a) of the Act. A writ application was filed by the management to challenge that order. The learned Judges of the Patna High Court agreed with the Tribunal that the Vice-President of the workers' union was qualified to represent them. The other objection of the management was regarding the order of the Tribunal refusing one Shri A. K. Tiwari to represent the . employer. It was urged that Shri Tiwari did not want to represent the employer under section 36 sub-section (2). It was In that context that the said observation was made. In the present case neither the employer nor any workman ever made a prayer that he wanted to appear personally In his own right. It may be pointed out that the observation appearing in the above passage to the effect that "every person has got a funda- mental and substantial right to appear In person and conduct his case before a court" is unassailable buL in case of an industrial tribunal this would be subject . to the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court In the case between, Ram Prasad -Vishwakarma and Industrial Tribunal, Patna and other (.19(31 I LLJ 504). That case was not cited before the learned Judges. Moreover, the above remarks would not apply to the AILICSA because it is neither an employer nor a workman. It is a trade union which can appear as a representative only under Section 36(l)(a) of the Act.

Lastly, the learned Counsel referred to Tamilnad Electricity Workers' Federa- tion i's. Madras State Electricity Board (AIR 1965 Madras 111), in that case the learned Judges considered the scope of section;; fcIA and 33(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and observed "that section 9A was never designed to prevent the implementation of any change which Is not a change imposed by the employer on the workmen but which is based upon the consent of the workmen to the oiler by the employer upon the exercise of their judgment lhat the change was beneficial. Nor can we agree that section 33(1) would prohibit such a change eveij though. it may be that a period ol conciliation had been commenced." It was also observed that "the right of a free individual in this country who may be a workman to judge for himself as to an offer beneficial to him concerning his service conditions and to exercise his choice In terms of that offer cannot be taken away because a trade union to which he may not even belong as a member does not share his view." Their Lordships had to made that observation because the workmen had accepted certain terms ottered by the employer and the trade unions had filed a writ application before the High Court against the Madras State Electricity Board to restrain it from implementing Its proceedings insofar as those proceedings altered the service conditions of the workmen of the Board. It is obvious that it was a converse case and the observations made therein are of no relevance in the circumstances of the case befpre us.

Point No. 2 also is therefore decided against the AILICSA and the Stenographers who have presented the said applications before this Tribunal.

Now coming to the third point for determination set out above, it may be observed that in the normal course, the first two points having been decided against the AILICSA and the petitioner-Stenographers, it would not have been necessary to decide it, but I have heard the parties on the merits and I think it proper to decide the third point also, so that, in case there is an appeal against the Award and a different view is taken in deciding the appeal, regarding the maintainability of the said applications, the necessity of remanding the case may not arise and the relief, If ar.v, to be given to the Stenographers may not be delayed. I have hecrd the pan-ties on this point also to satisfy myself whether the agreement arrived at in respTt't of the pay-scales including Special Pay, span of scale and adjustment, Is just and reasonable or it has resulted in such gross injustice; t0 the Stenographers that it should arouse judicial conscience aeainst it.

It Is already noted above that the first grievance of AILICSA Is about the pay-scale. It Is averred that the earnest injustice WJS done to the Stenographers when the Government of India passed its Order No, fi3(l) Ins.(l)(5), dated the 1st June. 1957, which is known as the Standardization Order. I have carefully gone through that Order and it shows that a cadre of Higher Grade Assistants was created by that Order for the first time and a scale of Rs. 140—410 was prescribed for them, but at the same time, the cadre of Assistants was also retained and two- scales of Rs.. 75—300 and Rs. 75—270 were prescribed, the first for the employees confirmed before 3] at August 1956 and the next for employees confirmed after 31st Auguut 1956. It further appears from para 4 of that Order that Shorthand Typists wire also ordered to be graded as Stenographers if thoy possessed the requisite qualifications of a Stenographer, Thus, in fact, Shorthand Typists who- possessed requisite qualifications were given better treatment than before. Two

scales were prescribed in the cadre of Stenographers cne of Jls, 00—300 for employees confirmed before 31—8—1956 and the other of Rs. 90—270 for employees confirmed after 31—8—1056. It does not appear from the perusal of this Order that the allegation of the petitioner-Stenographers to the effect that ak those who were Assistants before this Order were thereby upgraded as Higher Grade Assistants is correct. On the contrary, it appears from what was laid down in par^ 4 of the Order regarding the categorisation of employees, that all Assistants "'ere not to be promoted even as Section Heads which was a lower category than that ol Higher Grade Assistants. It was laid down that only those employees who /etfc in supervi- sory posts would be fitted as Section Heads to the extent of the number of posts available, on the basis of a selection by taking into account salary, experience in supervisory capacity and qualifications of every such employee. If, even the Assist- ants who were working in a supervisory capacity were not all upgraded as Section Heads, it cannot be believed in the absence of any evidence on that point that all the Assistants were upgraded as Higher Grade Assistants. It further appears that although Special Pay was not allowed to all the Stenographers by this Order, a Special Pay of Rs. 30, Rs. 40, and Rs, 50 p.m. was prescribed for those who were selected to work with senior officers like Deputy Zonal Managers, z,onal Managers, Directors and the Chairman. It is thus difficult to hold thdt injustice was done to the Stenographers by this^ Order.

Their next grievance is about the settlement of 1963. The perusal of thsit settle- ment shows that the grades of Assistants, Stenographers and Higher Grade Assistants were revised and laid down as follows: —

Assistants Rs. 130-5-155-6-167-8-207- (25 years) Assistants Rs. 130-5-155-6-167-8-207- (25 years)

10-257-12-281-E. B.-12- 10-257-12-281-E. B.-12- 305-15-350-20-370. 305-15-350-20-370.

Stenographers Rs. 145-10-215-12-275-E.B.- (18 yeara) Stenographers Rs. 145-IO-215-12-275-E.B.- (18 yeara)

15-350-20-370. 15-350-20-370.

Higher Grade Assistants . .. Higher Grade Assistants . . . Rs. I90-IO-26O-E,B.-IS- (21 years) Rs. i90-io-26o-E,B.-is- (21 years)

440-20-480- 440-20-480-

Again, it appears that Stenographers were given better scale aE compared to Assistants because 'they were to get a higher start and were to reach the maximum of the grade only after 18 years while the Assistnts were to take H5 years to reach the maximum.

In the Memorandum of Settlement dated the 20th June 1970, the scales prescribed are as follows:—.

Assistants . , , . .. Rs. 170-7-177-8-209-10-269- (25 years) Assistants . , , . ..

Rs. 170-7-177-8-209-10-269- (25 years)

12-305-15-380-E.B. - 20- 12-305-15-380-E.B. - 20-

500. 500.

Stenographers . . . • . Stenographers . . . .. Rs. 196-12-220-15-325- 20- (20 yeare)

Rs. 196-12-220-15-325- 20- (20 yeare)

385- E.B. -20-545. 385- E.B. -20-545.

Higher Grade Assistants . , Higher Grade Assistants . , . Rs. 245-i5-320-20-3fio-E,B.- (21 years)

Rs. 245-i5-320-20-3fio-E,B.- (21 years)

20-600-25-650. 20-600-25-650.

It is obvious that the scale of Stenographers is far better than that of Assistant!) because they have been given a start of Rs. 196 as against Rs. 170 allowed to the Assistants and they can reach the maximum of Rs. 545 while the \tsibtants stop at Rs. 500. Moreover, the Stenographers reach their maximum oE Rs. 5 to in 20 years while the Assistants will take 25 years to reach even the maximum of Rs. 500. While the Assistants have been allowed over the existing scale an increase yf Rs. 40 in the minimum and Rs. 130 in the maximum of the revised scale, the Stenographers have been allowed an increase of Rs. 51 at the minimum and Rs. 175 at the maximum of their scale. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Assistants, including the Typists who are placed in that scale, and whose instance is particularly cited by lh':m. have received a beter deal than the Stenographers.

It is also pointed out in the applications filed by the Stenographers, that the Stenographers in the employ of the Central Government are placed in the scale of Rs. 210—530 and the Stenographers in the employ of the Corporation have- been given only a scale of Rs. 196—545 and thus, they have not been brought upto the level of the Stenographers of the Central Government. It may be observed that the petJtioner-Stenographers and A1LICSA ought to have compared lh£lr rev}set! scale with Stenographers In comparable concerns like big companies deftlias with

general insurance. It was not quite appropriate to compare them with Stenographers in tne employ of the Central Government. Even then, it may be pointed out tWet there is not one scale of Stenographers in the employ o" the Central Government. There are four grades of Stenographers in the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service viz., Grade III, Grade II, Grade I and Selection Grade. No direct recruit- ment is made in Grade 1 and Selection Grade. Grade III carries a scale of Rs, 130—280, which is much lower than the revised scale of the Stenographers given In the agreement. Grade II carries a scale of Rs. 210—530. In this grade the Stenographers get a little higher start than the Stenographers in the service of the Corporation, but the maximum of the scale Is again lower as compared to the revised scale of the Stenographers in the service of the Corporation. Moreover, if the Special Pay of Rs. 20 be added to the scale It comes to Rs. 210—565. There is no Special Pay provided for Stenographers Grade II in the servlr-e of the Central Government. Thus, the revised scale of the Stenographers of the Corporation laid down In ihe agreement is dennitely higher than the scn±e of the Stenographers Grade II in the service of the Central Government. It has also to be borne in mind that Stenographers Grade II in the service of the Central Government are employees of Class II (non-gazetted) and- not of Class III as in the case of ithe Corporation. As regards Grade I and Selection Grade in the service of the Central Government, they are promotion posts corresponding to the promotion scale which Is aLowed to the Stenographers in the Corporation in the cadre of Higher Grade Assistants. Thus, the argument to the effect that the revised scale given to the Stenographers in the agreement is not better than the scale of Stenographers Grade II of the Central Government is not correct. Moreover, according to te revised formula of Dearness Allowance in the agreement of the 20th June, 1970 the rate of neutralization is 75 per cent in the case of Class HI employees on the base-year 1980- It is also provided that on quarterly basis ol 4 points rise or fall there would be a revision of Dearness Allowance, the proper course for the petitioners was to combine the basic pay. Special Pay, and Dearness Allowance and then compare their total emoluments with the total emoluments, available to Stenographers in comparable concerns. They have not put up their case- in 'that, light even though enough opportunity was available to them.

The Stenographers' real grievance is that they should have been given the same scale as has been laid down for the Higher Grade Assistants. I do not find any force in this argument because the cadre of Higher Grade Assistants was a higher cadre ever since it was created by the Standardization Order and it continues to remain so In the Memorandum of Settlement of the 20th June, 1970. It does appear to be essentially a promotion grade as urged by the learned Counsel for the Corporation. It was urged by the learned Counsel for the AILICSA that direct recruitment Is also made to the cadre of Higher Grade Assistants. It is true that direct recruitment to this cadre Is also possible under Clause (9) of the Recruitment Procedure given In the Life Insurance Corporation Establishment Manual, but It lays down that "Direct recruitment to this cadre will, be under_ taken only with the prior sanction of the Staff Committee and subject to such conditions as that Committee may prescribe". It is clear that direct recruitment Is not the rule but un exception which may be availed of, only In certain circumstances. It further appears that in the Promotion Procedure Jaid dowri^ in {he same Manual it Is provided as follows: —

"Promotion to the cadre of H.G.A.S.—Selection for promotions to this cadre shall be made onlv from among employees who have passed the following examinations:

(a) Assoclateship Examination of the Federation of Insurance Institutes, (b) Associateshlp Examination of the Chartered Insurance Institute. (c) Intermediate Examination of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. (d) Three subjects of the Examination of the Institute of Actuaries."

It Is clear from the above provision that it is certainly a promotion cadre and onlv those persons who have acquired the necessary qualifications after passing the prescribed examinations are eligible, Promotion to this post is open to all eligible employees including the Stenographers. It was submited by the learned Counsel for the Corporation that about 100 Stenographers who acquired the above-noted qualifications were promoted to the cadre of Higher Grade Assistants and they are working as regular Higher Grade Assistants In different technical spheres. It was also submitted bv him and admitted bv the representatives of the AILICSA at the time of artruments. that besides the above comnlcment about 98 Stenographers were selected and promoted on]y on the basis of their experience and were receiving the pqale laid down for thd Higher Grade Assistants'. Although they are working at

r

Stenographers, they are placed in the scale of Higher Grade Assistants and receiving hi&ner Ktuury. ims ermie is vnub open to tne oienograpneib wno acquire mgner qualifications and pass prescribed examinations necessary tor the puipose. Be- sides tnat quite a good pecenta&e of tnem is promoted and givtn thai scaie even on the basis of seniority and experience. As already noted above, iheie is con- siderable improvement in the scale laid down lor the Stenographers in the Memo- randum of Settlement. The parties iio the settlement have given mem a fair aeal. The AILICSA has not been able to make out a good case for giving the scale of Higher Grade Assistants to all the Stenographers.

Now, coming to the question of Special Pay, the main grievance raised by the Stenographers in their applications was that while the Functional Allowance allowed to the Typists was raised from Rs. 15 p.m. to Rs. 25 p.m., their Special Pay was increased from Rs. 10 to Rs. 20 p.m. only. According to them, their Special Pay should also have been fixed at Rs. 25 p.m. It has to. be borne in mind that the Functional Allowance allowed to the Typists does not carry with it Dearness Allowance and other benefits of Gratuity, Bonus, etc. That is why it was fixed at Rs. "15 p.m. as compared to Special Pay of Rs. 10 p.m. for the Stenographers even before it was revised in the Memorandum of Settlement. In the Memorandum of Settlement a raise of Rs. 10 was given to Typists in Functional Allowance and a similar raise of Rs. 10 was given to the Stenographers in the Special Pay. No greater favour was shown to the Typists as compared to the Stenographers. It was pointed out by the Corporation's learned Counsel that the Special Pay ol Rs. 20 allowed to the Stenographers alter inc.udmg the benefits of Dearness Allowance and other benefits of Bonus and Gratuity, actually comes to Rs. 36 p.m. There is, thus, no good ground for a grievance on this score as well.

It was also urged on behalf of the AILICSA that the Cashiers have been allowed Special Pay of Rs. 25 p.m. In the revised scale and there was no reason for not giving the same Special Pay to Stenographers. It may be observed that the Cashiers were already receiving a Functional Allowance of Rs. 15 p.m. and in their case also there is an increase of Rs. 10 p.m. only. It is true that their Functional Allowance has been altered into Special Pay and, therefore, they would now be able to earn thereon Dearness Allowance also, but the Cashiers are a class by themselves and the duty which they have to perform involves considerable risk. It is not a category which may be compared with any degree of fairness with that of Stenographers. Moreover, it may be noted that a further raise Of Rs 10 to Rs. 15 has been given in the Special Pay to those Stenographers who would be attached to senior officers. Instead of Rs. 20, Rs. 30, Rs. 40 and Rs 50 p m. it has been raised now to Rs. 30, Rs. 40, Rs. 55 and Rs. 65 p.m: After adding proportionate Dearness Allowance, Bonus and Provident Fund con- tribution to these amounts, it cannot be denied that a substantial benefit will be available to eligible employees. It was submitted on behalf of AILICEA that the Special Pay above Rs. 20 p.m. is only on paper and is not given to the Steno- graphers. It may be observed, thart the Corporation Is bound to Implement the agreement, and if any part thereof Is not implemented, it is open to the concerned employees to take proper legal steps about its enforcement. The Special Pay as revised In the agreement for the Stenographers cannot be said to be unreasonable.

At the time of final arguments it was lastly contended by learned Counsel for AILICSA that when the office-bearers of this Association met the Chairman ol the Corporation he had offered to increase the Special Pay from Rs 20 to Rs 25 but with regard to other improvements over and above the conditions provided in the settlement he promised to consider them only if there was no opposition from the four Associations who are parties to the settlement. He tried to refer to the affidavit of Shri K. L. Chawla on this point. This argument was strongly opposed bv learned Counsel for the Corporation and also by the representatives of ATTEA and AILIEA. It wan urged by them that a new question of fact should not be allowed to he raised, that the copies of Shrl Chawla s affidavit were not supplied to them and It should not be taken into consideration as it was produced at the Ias1 stage of hearing. I find that it was not averred by AILICSA and the Stenographers in Iheir applications Lefo~o the Tribunal that the Chairman had offered to increase the Special Pay of Stenographers by Rs. 5. It is denied by the Corporation that the Chairman had agreed to rntec the R ^ l al P?y *° Rs. 25 or to imy other sum as alleged by Shri Chawla. It is also emphatically denied by the Corporation that the Chairman had aereed to consider the conditions or demands outside the settlement doted the 20th June 1970 if the four Unions did not orjDose such consideration by the Chairman It may be observed that a fresh plea Involving a new question of fact cannot be allowed to be raised at the time

of final arguments. Moreover, Shri Chawla is not a disinterested person. In the absence ot any documentary evidence or Independent oral testimony, no reliance can be placed on mere orai assertion and no relief can be aliowed on that basis. The said argument is, therefore, rejected.

As regards the span of their scale, it was vehemently urged on behalf of the Stenograpners that it extended only over 18 years ever since the Standardisation Order was passed and it has been increased to 20 years in the Memorandum of Settlement and this has put them to a definite disadvantage. The reply given from the other side is, that since the maximum of the scale was raised to Rs. 645 the span had to be extended by two years. It the span of 18 years were retained in the revised scale, it would have necessitated a higher rate of annual incre- ments. It would appear that even in the revised scales of Section Heads and Higher Grade Assistants the annual increment is only Rs. 20 after they reach Rs. 325 and Rs. 320 and till they reach Rs. 585 and Rs. 600 respectively. The Stenographers have algo been allowed the same annual increment of Rs. 20 after they reach Rs. 325 and till they reach the maximum of Rs. 545. When they were in a scale lower than that oi the Section Heads and Higher Grade Assistants they could not legitimately expect higher annual increment. It is also urged that in the case of Record Clerks the previous span was 26 years and it has been reduced by one year and kept at 25 years. In the case of Stenographers alone it has been increased by 2 years. It would suffice to observe that if Record Cleiks have been fairly treated, the Stenographers cannot make a legitimate grievance out of it. Their span is still 5 years less than that of the Assistants and even one year less than that of the Higher Grade Assistants and Section Heads. The normal expectation of the period of service in the case of Class III and Class IV employees of the Corporation is 35 years and, therefore, the increase of span from 18 to 20 years is not unreasonable. It is common knowledge that one tends to get stagnated if he reaches the peak of his scale too early and there is no scope for increments for a number of years. Looked at from that view point also, the increase of span from 18 to 20 years is not unjust.

Lastly, coming to the question of the method of fixation in the new scales, it is obvious that a uniform procedure has been laid down for all Class III employees other than the Section heads. It is provided that "the basic pay as on 31st March 1969 in the existing scales of pay will be increased by 28 per cent" and then "with reference to the basic pay thus arrived at fixation In the new scales will be done at a stage which is equal to the amount of basic pay determined as above and if there is no such stage at the next higher stage". This formula applies to Assistants, Stenographers and Higher Grade Assistants equally- Since the span oi the scale of Stenographers was extended from 18 years to 20 years, the pay of the Stenographers who haS reached the maximum could not be fixed one stage lower than the maximum of the revised scale. Stenographers who had earned only 18 increments could hot be treated as if they had earned twenty increments. If that were done, they would have received disproportionately higher increments which would have created heart-burnine amongst employees of other categories. It, thus, appears that those who represented the Stenographers were not wanting in their effort to obtain for them substantial relief in the same proportion, rathe.r in a way little better than what was allowed to employees in other categories.

It was alleged in the applications that as there are very few employees in the category of Stenographers, that Is, only 781 out of the total number of 41,000 Class III and Class IV staff, their legitimate demands have been ijmored. This allegation does not seem to be a fair one. It cannot be gains arid that although the Stenographers were asking for a better deal ever since they formed a new Association, their efforts always proved abortive and they were unable to achieve any success. This is apparent from the perusal of their own application which tb?y had presented before the Tribunal for being impleaded as a party. Their request even for holding formal conciliation proceedings did not meet with any success. It should be appreciated by the Stenographers that it was only because of the backing of the vast number of other employees and because their case was taken up by the AINLIEF and the other two Associations that they were able to raise Industrial disputes and persuade the Government to refer them to the Tribunal- Again, it was on account of the serious efforts made by the officers of the AIIEA, AILIEA. AINLIEF and the LIC HGAA that the Corporation was prevailed upon to concede better terms and conditions of service embodied in the two Memoran- dums of Settlements. It is extremely doubtful if the AILICSA, left to Itself, and without the support of the other Unions, would have been able to achieve better suecaaa. M any rate, the case put forward by the Stenographers, even on merits,

is not strong enough to persuade thP Tribunal to Interfere with the settlements. an^ their applications are fit to be rejected

As urged by the Stenographers, it la true that the benefits which they have received under the settlement of the 20th June, 1970 fall short of the cluim which was raised in the Charter of Demands, but this grievance is not particular to their category alone. The demands were pitched very high and they were very stoutly opposed by the Corporation. It is no mean achievement which the AIIEA, AINLXEF, AILIEA and LIC HQAAMve beeen able to bring about for them by the settlements. I do not "mean "to "say that the optimum has been reached in the scale of Stenographers, but ideal conditions of service cannot be attained all at once. I may repeat that their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed in an- other connection in All India Reserve Bank Employees Association versus the Reserve Bank of India (1965 II LJJ 175). that the ideal "has eluded our efforts like an ever-receding horizon and wiU so remain for some time to come".

The applications Pled by the AILICSA and the Stenographers are hereby dis- missed. Application No. Misc/NIT/39/70 is allowed. Since it lias been held by the Tribunal that the two Settlements dated the 20th June, 1970 embodied in the earlier Award are binding on the members of AILICSA and all other Stenographers, 1 hereby give a composite consent Award in respect of the Stenographers in both the References in terms of the said settlements. This would apply to all the Stenographers of the Corporation including those who are in the Higher Grade Assistants' scale.

This Award, when it comes into operation, would supersede the Interim Award dated the 23rd June, 1969 in respect of Stenographers also, in the manner indicated in the earlier Award of the 1.3th July, 1970.

In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

(Sd.) D. S. DAVE,

Presiding Officer,

National Industrial Tribunal.

NEW DELHI,

Dated, September 26, 1970.

[No. 40/36/70/LRI.]

S- S. SAHASRANAMAN, Under Secy.

P1ITNTFT1 HY THE QENTWAT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA PRESS, MINTO BOAD. HBW DKLBI AND PUBLISHED BY THE MANAGER OF PUBLICATIONS, DELHI. 197ft