- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Andheri Marol Kurla Bus Serviceand Another v. State Of Bombay .
Case Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellants are (i) the Andheri Marol Kurla Bus Service, a private bus company (Accused 1 before the trial court), and (ii) its Manager, H. M. Khan (Accused 5). Industrial disputes had arisen between the company and its workmen. A conciliation officer first corresponded with the employer on 13-12-1951, formally summoned it on 31-12-1951, and held several meetings from 17-1-1952 until at least 2-6-1952. On 18-3-1952, during the course of these proceedings, the company dismissed a conductor, Louis Pereira.
The Assistant Commissioner of Labour prosecuted five individuals, including the present appellants, for violating Section 33(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“the Act”) during the pendency of conciliation proceedings, an offence punishable under Section 31(1). The Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, acquitted all accused, holding that the conciliation proceedings had lapsed after fourteen days and were therefore no longer “pending.” On appeal by the State, the Bombay High Court reversed the acquittals of Accused 1 and 5, convicted them, and imposed fines of ₹250 and ₹50 respectively. The present appeal to the Supreme Court is by special leave against that conviction.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the conciliation proceedings were still “pending” on 18-3-1952, the date on which Louis Pereira was dismissed.
- If so, whether the appellants’ dismissal of the workman without the conciliation officer’s permission amounted to a breach of Section 33(1), justifying conviction under Section 31(1) of the Act.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- Section 12 of the Act obliges a conciliation officer to file his report within fourteen days; hence conciliation proceedings automatically terminate after that period. Because more than fourteen days had elapsed before 18-3-1952, no proceedings were pending and Section 33(1) could not apply.
- Accepting the High Court’s view—that proceedings continue until the Government receives the conciliation officer’s report—would allow them to drag on indefinitely, contrary to the Act’s objective of expeditious settlement.
The opinion does not detail the respondent's submissions.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Workers of the Industry Colliery Dhanbad v. Management of the Industry Colliery, (1953) SCR 428 | Interpreted Section 20(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act to mean that conciliation proceedings conclude only when the appropriate Government receives the conciliation officer’s report. | Relied upon to reject the appellants’ claim that proceedings lapse automatically after fourteen days. |
| Colliery Mazdoor Congress Asansol v. New Beerbhoom Coal Co. Ltd., (1952) LAC 219 | Affirmed that conciliation proceedings remain pending until concluded in the manner prescribed by Section 20(2). | Cited as additional authority for holding that the proceedings were still pending on 18-3-1952. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began by noting that conviction under Section 31(1) depends on proof of a contravention of Section 33(1), which forbids an employer from dismissing a workman “during the pendency of any conciliation proceeding” without written permission of the authority before which the proceeding is pending.
To ascertain whether proceedings were “pending,” the Court examined Section 20(2) of the Act, which specifies when conciliation proceedings “shall be deemed to have concluded.” Under clause (b) of that sub-section, where no settlement is reached the proceedings conclude “when the report of the conciliation officer is received by the appropriate Government.” The phrase “received by the appropriate Government” is decisive: the mere expiry of fourteen days contemplated in Section 12(6) for submission of the report does not terminate the proceedings.
The Court acknowledged that Section 12 seeks expedition, but held that any delay by the conciliation officer, though “reprehensible,” does not curtail the statutory definition of pendency. The interpretation urged by the appellants would rewrite Section 20(2)(b) and defeat the protective purpose of Section 33. Earlier decisions—particularly Workers of the Industry Colliery Dhanbad—had already adopted the same construction, and the Court found no reason to depart from it.
Applying this reading, the report had not yet been received by the Government on 18-3-1952; the conciliation proceedings were therefore still pending. The appellants’ dismissal of Louis Pereira without permission accordingly violated Section 33(1), supporting their conviction under Section 31(1).
Holding and Implications
Appeal Dismissed; convictions and fines affirmed.
By upholding the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court reconfirms that conciliation proceedings remain pending until the appropriate Government actually receives the conciliation officer’s report. The ruling reinforces worker protections under Section 33: employers may not alter service conditions or dismiss workmen connected with a dispute while conciliation is formally alive, irrespective of administrative delays. No new legal principle is created, but existing precedent is reaffirmed and applied to sustain the appellants’ convictions.
Kapur, J.—This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay reversing the judgment of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay and thus convicting Accused 1 and 5 under Section 31(1) read with Section 33(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Act 14 of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act) and sentencing Accused 1 to a fine of Rs 250 and Accused 5 to a fine of Rs 50.
2. The appellants are the Andheri Marol Kurla Bus Service who was Accused 1 (now Appellant 1) and its Manager H.M Khan who was Accused 5 (now Appellant 2). So me disputes arose between Appellant 1 and its workmen. On 13-12-1951, the Conciliation Officer wrote to Appellant 1 and enclosed the demands of the union which were dated 9-8-1951. On 31-12-1951, Appellant 1 was asked to appear before the conciliation officer on 9-1-1952, and after getting one adjournment Appellant 1 appeared before the conciliation officer on 17-1-1952, and filed its written statement and raised various objections. The next date of hearing was 31-1-1952, and the proceedings went on till 2-6-1952, when Appellant 1 wrote to the conciliation officer saying that no useful purpose would be served by holding any further meetings. On 9-5-1952, the union had also indicated to the conciliation officer that the negotiations had failed. On 18-3-1952, the appellant dismissed Louis Pereira, a bus conductor and proceedings were taken on a complaint by Assistant Commissioner of Labour under Section 33 read with Section 31 of the Act against 5 accused persons, the two appellants and the partners of Appellant 1. The Chief Presidency Magistrate acquitted all the accused including the appellants and held that as the conciliation proceedings had continued for a period of more than 14 days as from 17-1-1952, further proceedings for conciliation were illegal and therefore the accused persons could not be convicted under Section 31(1) of the Act. The State took an appeal to the High Court and the judgment of acquittal was reversed and of the accused persons the two appellants were convicted and the others were acquitted. The two appellants have appealed by special leave.
3. The question for decision is whether the conciliation proceedings could be said to be pending when Louis Pereira was dismissed. If the answer is in the affirmative then the appellants have been properly convicted and if not the conviction must be set aside. Section 31(1) makes the contravention of the provision of Section 33 of the Act an offence punishable with imprisonment for a period which may extend to six months or with fine or with both. Section 33(1) provides:
“33(1). During the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a conciliation officer or a Board or of any proceeding before a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, no employer shall:
(a) in regard to any matter connected with the dispute, alter to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the commencement of such proceedings; or
(b) for any misconduct connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, any workmen concerned in such dispute,
save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending.”
Therefore the question reduces itself to the meaning of the words “pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer”.
4. The argument raised on behalf of the appellant is that the object of conciliation is to get a settlement made with expedition and therefore under Section 12 the conciliation officer was bound to make his report within 14 days of the commencement of the conciliation proceedings or within such shorter period fixed by the appropriate Government. From this it was submitted that as 14 days had expired before 18-3-1952, the dismissal could not be said to be one within the words “pendency of conciliation proceedings”. The Act provides for commencement and conclusion of conciliation proceedings under Section 20 but the first sub-section of Section 20 deals with what are called utility services and sub-section 2 of that section provides as to when the conciliation proceedings conclude. That sub-section is as follows:
“20(1). ……............................................................................
(2) A conciliation proceeding shall be deemed to have concluded—
(a) where a settlement is arrived at, when a memorandum of the settlement is signed by the parties to the dispute;
(b) where no settlement is arrived at, when the report of the conciliation officer is received by the appropriate Government or when the report of the Board is published under Section 17, as the case may be; or
(c) when a reference is made to a court, Labour Court, tribunal or National Tribunal under Section 10 during the pendency of conciliation proceedings.”
The provisions of sub-section 20(2) apply to all conciliation proceedings whether in regard to utility services or otherwise. All conciliation proceedings under this sub-section shall be deemed to have concluded in the case where no settlement is reached, when the report of the conciliation officer is received by the appropriate Government. The conciliation proceedings therefore do not end when the report under Section 12(6) is made by the conciliation officer but when that report is received by the appropriate Government. It was contended that the conciliation proceedings should be held to terminate when the conciliation officer is required under Section 12(6) of the Act to submit his report but the provisions of the Act abovequoted do not support this contention as the termination of the conciliation proceedings is deemed to take place when the report is received by the appropriate Government. This is how Section 20(2)(b) was interpreted in Workers of the Industry Colliery Dhanbad v. Management of the Industry Colliery (1953) SCR 428.
5. It was next contended that on this interpretation the conciliation proceedings could be prolonged much beyond what was contemplated by the Act and the termination would depend upon how soon a report is received by the appropriate Government. It is true that Section 12(6) of the Act contemplates the submission of the report by the conciliation officer within 14 days but that does not affect the pendency of the conciliation proceedings and if for some reason the conciliation officer delays the submission of his report his action may be reprehensible but that will not affect the interpretation to be put on Section 20(2)(b) of the Act. Section 12 lays down the duties of the conciliation officer. He is required to bring about settlement between the parties and must begin his investigation without delay and if no settlement is arrived at he is to submit his report to the appropriate Government. No doubt Section 12 contemplates that the report should be made and the proceedings closed within a fortnight and if proceedings are not closed but are carried on, as they were in the present case, or if the conciliation officer does not make his report within 14 days he may be guilty of a breach of duty but in law the proceedings do not automatically come to an end after 14 days but only terminate as provided in Section 20(2)(b) of the Act. (Colliery Mazdoor Congress Asansol v. New Beerbhoom Coal Co., Ltd. (1952) LAC 219. As the conciliation proceedings were pending at the time when Louis Pereira was dismissed the appellants were rightly convicted under Section 31(1) read with Section 33 of the Act.
6. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
Alert