On the basis of collective bargaining, the Act aims to achieve social justice.

Through the use of

collective bargaining, disputes about workplace conditions will be settled amicably and without the
use of coercion. So that The conflict is resolved amicably and freely, but reluctantly between the
management and the labour. Voluntary arbitration is a measure to ensure justice in the adjudication
in the workplace because of the same reason, it is essential that the conflict must be made known to
the workforce, as they would eventually be the ones bound by the arbitrator's decision. Because of
this very reason, there must be collective bargaining.

The Union only helps the workers in resolving their disputes with management but ultimately it
would be for the workers to take decision and suggest remedies. The arbitration agreement must
therefore be published before the arbitrator considers the merits of the dispute. Non-compliance of
this requirement would be fatal to the arbitral award.

The supporting case is . The Kerala HC in Kathayee Cotton Mills v. District Labour Officer

Sub-section (3) is mandatory and a failure to comply with the provisions would vitiate the award.

Furthermore, When the State Government submitted the case under section 10 (1) it hadn't
considered another factor. Section 10 and 10-A of the industrial dispute Act are the alternative
remedies to settle an industrial dispute. Either the parties can engage into an arbitration agreement
and send the matter to an arbitrator under section 10-A, or they can refer the disagreement to an
Industrial Tribunal for adjudication under section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act. However, the
Government cannot bring a matter for resolution under Section 10 once the parties have selected
their remedy under Section 10-A. Therefore, the HC’s aforementioned reference under section 10(1)
cannot be upheld.

It should be noticed that the term "shall" was used by the legislature twice, in Subsection (3) and
Rule 7 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1967. So, there is no doubt that the agreement
must be published in the official Gazette given the context in which the term has been used.

The counsel for the appellant claimed that the publication in the Gazette is only for general
information and not a condition precedent for making the award. So essentially, When parties have
voluntarily agreed and referred their problem to arbitration and also participated in the award
proceedings, a mere non-publication of the agreement cannot render the award invalid.

Another thing is that…. penal consequence for nonpublication of the agreement is not prescribed,
therefore it is to be assumed that the requirement of publication is only directory and not
mandatory. Lastly the appellant finally rounded off his submission by stating that the publication of
the agreement is necessary, but the period specified under sub-section (3) is only directory.

The cases that have been cited are:

1. Remington Rand of India Ltd. v. Workmen

Court held that though Section 17(1) makes it obligatory on the government to publish the
award, the time limit of 30 days is however merely directory and not mandatory.
2. Modern Stores (Cigarettes) v. Krishnadas Shah (Division Bench MP
Publication is gazette is obligatory but requirement of time is only directory. But the court
still quashed the award and directed the Presiding Officer to re-adjudicate the dispute
referred under S.10-A of the Labour Act.

CONCLUSION

The judge ordered….