DECISION This is an appeal under section 37 of I. R. O. against the award of the Labour Court dismissing the application made by the appellant-Union under section 32 of I. R. O.
2. The workers of the respondent-Mill formed a Union known as 'Awalin bilk Mills Workers' Union' and was registered in the month of June 1972. The Union had raised certain demands in 1974 and a settlement was reacted on 16th October 1974 and it was to remain in force for a period of one year.
However the Union before the expiry of that period raised certain demands in June, 1975 by serving strike notice. Conciliation pro--ceedings having failed the dispute was taken to the Labour Court.
3. Evidence was tendered by both the parties and on the assessment of the evidence the Labour Court dismissed the application. It was held that the Union was not a 'Collective Bargaining Agent' for want of certificate from the Registrar as required by section 22, I. R. O. and, therefore, incom-- petent to raise the dispute. It was further held that no evidence justifying the demands was led and. therefore, demands could not be allowed. It was also held that the mill was closed and, therefore, the question of consideration of the demands did not arise. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed.
4. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments I see no reason to interfere with the view taken by the Labour Court.
5. Taking up the first ground with regard to the necessity of the certificate from Registrar reference be made to section 22 of I. R. O. It requires that where there is only one registered Trade Union in an establish--ment or group of establishments that Trade Union shall upon an application made in its behalf be certified by the Registrar in the prescribed manner to be C. B. A. for such establishment or group. Admittedly no such certificate had been obtained from the Registrar. Consequently, the Union could not be treated to be C. B. A. and was incompetent to raise the dispute. In order to meet this legal objection the learned representative for the Union relied upon section 52 of I. R. O. which obviated the necessity of requiring certificate in case the registered Trade Union had been recognised by the employer. In this connection it was pointed out that previously the settle--ment had been reached and therefore, it could be presumed that the employer bad recognised the Trade Union and so the dispute could be raised by the Union. I find no force in this contention in view of the amendments which had been brought in sections 22 and 52 of I. R. O. simultaneously in October, 1974.
6. Section 22 prior to the amendment did not require any such certificate and if there was a single Trade Union it could be deemed to be C. B. A. section 22 as stood prior to the amendment required that a registered Trade Union, if recognised by the employer, could act as Collective Bargaining Agent, till it was ascertained as such. In fact this section was applicable only when there were more than one registered Trade Unions and a secret ballot had to be held to ascertain as to which of the Unions could be treated to be 'Collective Bargaining Agent'. This section had no application in case there was only one registered Union in the establishment or group oil establishments. Since by amendment the certificate from the Registrar became necessary even in case of a single registered Trade Union, section 521 was simultaneously amended and it was laid down that only a 'Collective Bargaining Agent' as certified by the Registrar of Trade Unions could function as such.
This was intended to meet the contingency when an application had been made to the Registrar after the amendment of section 22 and it was still pending. In the present case this situation could not arise as the amendment was made in October; 1974 while the present dispute was railed in June, 1975 and no application by the Union for securing the certificate under section 22 was made.
In the absence of that application the benefit of section 52 could not be availed of. It, therefore, follows that the appellant-- Union could not be treated to be C. B. A. and was incompetent to raise the dispute.
7. So far the merits are concerned it was rightly observed by the Labour Court that no evidence was led in support of the demands. The evidence was general in nature and no justification was provided to allow the demands.
8. It is an admitted position that previously a settlement was reached between the parties and it was to remain in force up to 16th October, 1975. It was during the currency of this settlement that a fresh dispute was raise in June, 1975. It is an established position of law that no fresh dispute can be raised during the currency of the settlement except when some new contingency arises but no such contingency in the present case has been pointed out.
9. Lastly, it was rightly held that the mill was closed and the services of the workers had been terminated, and therefore, the question of consideration of demands did not arise.