Gujarat High Court
Hindustan Salts Ltd vs Assistant Labour Commissioner ... on 16 April, 2015
Author: S.G.Shah
Bench: S.G.Shah
C/SCA/16886/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16886 of 2014
==========================================================
HINDUSTAN SALTS LTD....Petitioner(s)
Versus
ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) & 3....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MRS VD NANAVATI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR KL PANDYA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR K R MISHRA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1 2 , 4
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH
Date : 16/04/2015
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mrs. V.D. Nanavati, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.K.R. Mishra, learned advocate for respondent no.3 as well as Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned AGP for the respondent - State. All the parties have agreed to dispose of the matter finally.
2. The controversy between the parties is raised in interpreting Section 9C of the I.D. Act before its amendment and after its amendment.
3. The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in initiating Central Government Industrial Tribunal (In short `CGIT') Application No.70 of 2014 before the Industrial Tribunal at Ahmedabad and prayed to quash and set aside an order dated 15.7.2014 by respondent No.1 whereby reference regarding demand of union for regularizing of services of 99 employees with the petitioner has been raised. The petitioner is under impression that such reference cannot be referred to the CGIT Page 1 of 3 C/SCA/16886/2014 ORDER cum Labour Court.
4. Whereas, it is contended by respondent No.3 - Union of employees that pursuant to sub Section 5 of Section 9C of the Act, after its amendment in the year 2010, notwithstanding anything contained in this Section, the setting up of Grievance Redressal Committee shall not affect the right of the workmen to raise industrial dispute on the same subject matter under the provision of this Act, though the jurisdiction is with the Grievance Redressal machinery to decide the dispute between the employer and employee.
5. Whereas, it is contended by the petitioner that pursuant to Section 9C, the CGIT does not have jurisdiction to entertain such reference. Considering the provision of sub Section (4) of Section 9C which is produced in Paragraph 5 of the main petition.
6. However, it becomes clear that the Section has been amended and now pursuant to sub Section (5) of Section 9C, right of the workmen does not affect so as to raise industrial dispute and, thereby, practically, it seems that there is concurrent jurisdiction by the Grievance Redressal machinery and CGIT.
7. However, at present, this Court has restrained itself from entering into scrutinizing of further details so as to arrive at any specific conclusion regarding specific jurisdiction of both such authorities, for the simple reason that, deciding such issue at this stage would result into curtailing rights of either party to agitate the same. Moreover, when respondent No.1 has already filed a Page 2 of 3 C/SCA/16886/2014 ORDER reference and which is registered and initiated as CGIT case No.70 of 2014 by the respondent No.2, it would not be appropriate to discuss the factual details or to arrive at any specific conclusion.
8. In view of above facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to allow the present petitioner to raise the similar issue regarding jurisdiction before the CGIT with a direction to CGIT to decide such issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue before proceeding further in the application on its merits.
9. Thereby, this petition is partly allowed in following terms;
[9.1] The petitioner has to raise preliminary issue before the CGIT in pending CGIT Application No. 70 of 2014 between both the parties.
[9.2] CGIT shall extend reasonable opportunity to both the sides to submit their case before deciding such issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue.
[9.3] The interim relief granted earlier is modified to that extent.
10. Petition is disposed of in aforestated terms. Notice is discharged.
(S.G.SHAH, J.) VATSAL Page 3 of 3