1. In this application for stay, the appellant-petitioner-company, namely, Guest Keen Williams Ltd. has contended that pursuant to an agreement entered into between the company and the junior management staff of the said company, inter alia, to the effect that the said members of the junior management staff were included in the category of the officers and not in the category of workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, certain benefits had been conferred on the said members of the junior management staff during the pendency of a reference proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act before the Seventh Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal. A copy of the said agreement was made available before the learned Judge of the Tribunal and he was informed on behalf of the appellant-petitioner that in view of such agreement, there was no occasion for any industrial dispute in the said reference proceeding because the members of the junior management staff had accepted the position that they were members of the adminstrative staff and were not workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Judge, however, did not decide the said contention of the petitioner-company and kept the same open on the finding that the decision of the same was dependent upon certain evidences on fact. The learned Judge of the Industrial Tribunal, however, disposed of the said reference proceeding on the basis of the agreement entered between the parties.

2. Thereafter at the instance of the Junior Management Staff Association of the company a conciliation proceeding was started by the Conciliation Officer, namely, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, West Bengal. It appears that the appellant-petitioner company has made a submission before the said Conciliation Officer that such conciliation proceeding was no longer maintainable as the members of the junior management staff were not workmen and as such any dispute between them and the company could not be considered under the Industrial Disputes Act. As the Conciliation Officer has been issuing notices to the appellant-petitioner company calling upon the management to come for discussion in the said conciliation proceeding, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was moved before the Court, inter alia, contending therein that the said conciliation proceeding was illegal and the Conciliation Officer had no jurisdiction to proceed with the conciliation proceeding on the footing that the members of the Junior Management Staff were workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned trial judge, however, disposed of the said writ petition, inter alia, holding that the Conciliation Officer should not be restrained from proceeding with the said conciliation proceeding at this stage but the petitioner-company would be free to take objections against such conciliation proceeding and they would be at liberty to move against any decision which would be made by the Conciliation Officer in such conciliation proceeding. Being dissatisfied with such adjudication of the learned trial Judge, the instant appeal has been preferred and the aforesaid application for stay and/or injunction has also been made.

3. Sri Ginwala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-petitioner-company, has contended that in view of the fact that the agreement was entered into between the Junior Management Staff Association and the appellant-petitioner-company that the members of the said Junior Management Staff Association were not workmen within the Industrial Disputes Act and they would not be treated as such, and further in view of the fact that on such solemn agreement between the parties, the members of the said Junior Management Staff Association derived certain benefits from the company, it was no longer open to the members of the said Junior Management Staff of the company to approach the Conciliation Officer for conciliation of any dispute within the scope and ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act. Sri Ginwala has contended that the Conciliation Officer has been apprised of such agreement between the parties and the company has categorically pointed out that after accepting the position by the members of the said Junior Management Staff Association that they were the Management Staff of the Company and were not workmen, the Conciliation Officer cannot proceed on the footing that the said members are workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, and as such, there is occasion for the conciliation of the disputes raised by such workmen. He has contended that the members of the said Junior Management Staff Association are estopped from contending any further that they are still workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. Sri Ginwala has also contended that the said Conciliation Officer is under an obligation to take into consideration the fact of such agreement and to drop the said conciliation proceeding because he had no jurisdiction to proceed with such conciliation proceeding at the instance of the members of the Junior Management State Association. In support of his contention Sri Ginwala has referred to a decision made in the case of Workmen of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v Hindustan Lever Ltd. 1984 L.L.N.460. Reliance has been made to the observation appearing in para 25 of the said decision and it has been contended by Sri Ginwala that in view of the aforesaid agreement between the Junior Management Staff Association of the company and the company, the members of the Junior Management Staff were estopped from contending any further that they were workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act and at their instance, a conciliation proceeding could at all be initiated. Sri Ginwala had submitted that despite the relevant facts and circumstances of the said case being made known to the Conciliation Officer the Conciliation Officer has chosen not to drop the said proceeding and it appears that he is bent upon proceeding further with the said purported conciliation proceeding illegally and without jurisdiction, and as such the. said purported conciliation proceeding initiated without jurisdiction should be quashed by this Court and the interim order should be passed restraining the Conciliation Officer from proceeding any further with the conciliation proceeding.

4. Sri Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the members of the Junior Management Staff of the company and the said Junior Management Staff Association, has submitted that in the earlier reference proceeding, the issue raised by the company as to whether or not the member of the Junior Management Staff Association of the Company had ceased to be workmen within the meaning of workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, and as such, the reference was no longer maintainable had not been decided in favour of the appellant-petitioner-company. The learned Judge of the Industrial Tribunal was of the view that whether the members of the said Junior Management Staff Association were workmen or not within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act would depend on cogent evidences to be adduced by the parties. The said question was kept open by the learned judge of the Industrial Tribunal, but it appears that he proceeded on the footing that they were still workmen and the reference was disposed of on the basis of the agreement entered into between the parties. Sri Mukherjee has further submitted that if certain employees are workmen within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, and as such are entitled to the benefits of the Industrial Disputes Act which is a social welfare legislation, they are not entitled to change their status simply by entering into an agreement contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. He has contended that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute and any agreement or contract against the statute is void. In the aforesaid decision of Hindustan Lever Ltd, the Supreme Court has also accepted such contention. Sri Mukherjee has contended that whether or not there had been any alteration in the condition of service of the said employees now designated as Junior Management Staff of the company and on such alteration of service condition they have become members of the Management Staff and not workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, must depend on relevant facts and circumstances if any dispute is raised to that effect, the same may be adjudicated by the appropriate authority. But simply because an agreement was entered into by some employees who are workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and the workmen had voluntarily agreed to have their designation as the members of the Junior Management Staff and have also agreed that they should cease to be workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, they cannot be treated as members of the management staff if in fact they can still be adjudged workmen from the nature of duties and functions being performed by them, then the contract made by the workmen contrary to the beneficial statute, namely, Industrial Disputes Act, will be of no consequence but should be treated as void. As such the Conciliation Officer is quite competent to go on with the conciliation proceeding when such workmen claiming themselves as workmen have raised disputes. Hence there is no lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Conciliation Officer and it cannot be contended that because of the said agreement, the Conciliation Officer was bound to proceed on the footing with the members of the Junior Management Staff Association were not workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. Sri Mukherjee has further submitted, that the appellant-petitioner-company, did not succeed in the contention raised by the company in the earlier reference proceeding that the said members had ceased to be workmen and the company also did not challenge the award passed by the learned Judge of the Seventh Industrial Tribunal on the basis of the agreement between the parties. Sri Mukherjee has submitted that the award on the basis of the said agreement can be passed only on the footing that the concerned employees were workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, and as such the Tribunal had jurisdiction to pass the award.

5. Sri Mukherjee has also submitted that law is well-settled that unless in the proceeding itself, there is any admission by a party about his legal status or that there is any admission by the party of some question of fact, the said proceeding cannot be disposed of on the basis of admission of the parties outside the proceeding. Even assuming for argument's sake that the members of the Junior Management Staff Association had accepted their position as the members of the Management Staff, such agreement may at best be a piece of evidence and the legality and validity of the agreement may be a matter of decision before the appropriate authority. He has, therefore, contended that the learned trial Judge was quite justified in disposing of the writ proceeding in the manner indicated hereinbefore ana no interference is called for by the appellate Court.

6. After considering the respective contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to us that there is enough force in the contention made by Sri Mukherjee, appearing on behalf of the respondents. In our view, Sri Mukherjee is justified in his contention that if in fact the members of the Junior Management Staff Association can be held to be workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act on consideration of the nature of duties being performed by them, then simply because they had agreed to be designated as the members of the management staff or that they have actually been designated as such, they cannot be precluded from contending that they are still workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, and as such they are entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid social welfare legislation. In our view, the decision made in the case of Workmen of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. 1984-I L.L.N.460-(vide supra), relied on by Sri Ginwala amply supports the contention made by Sri Mukherjee that the workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act are not permitted to contract validly against the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no manner of doubt that if on the basis of the agreement, the conditions of service of the said members of the Junior Management Staff Association have been changed in such a manner that they can be held as members of the management staff and not workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, such workmen will cease to be workmen because of the altered conditions of service, but agreement as such will not take away the right of the workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act if the conditions of service of such workmen can bring them within the definition of workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act.

7. In our view, the Conciliation Officer should not be restrained by this Court from proceeding with the conciliation proceeding, but the said Conciliation Officer will be quite free to take into consideration independently of the relevant facts and circumstances placed before him by the respective parties and on that basis, he will be free to dispose of the conciliation proceeding in accordance with law. In the aforesaid circumstances, no interference is called for in this application and the application fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

8. By way of abundant caution we make it clear that we have not considered as to whether or not under the existing conditions of service the members of the Junior Management Staff Association can be treated as the members of the management staff and not workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and the appropriate authority will be free to decide such question.

9. Liberty is also given to the appellant-petitioner-company to make further submissions before the Conciliation Officer in respect of the points raised for consideration in the said conciliation proceeding as prayed for by Sri Ginwala.