Gujarat High Court
Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha vs Government Of Gujarat & Ors on 22 September, 2014
Author: Paresh Upadhyay
Bench: Paresh Upadhyay
C/SCA/3433/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3433 of 2014
================================================================
GUJARAT MAZDOOR SABHA ....Petitioner
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT & ORS. ....Respondents
================================================================
Appearance:
MR AMRISH PATEL, ADVOCATE WITH
MR RAJESH P MANKAD, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner
MR RASHESH RINDANI, AGP for the Respondents No. 1 - 3
MR MAULIK R SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent No. 4
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
Date : 22/09/2014
ORAL ORDER
1. This Court had, on 08.09.2014, passed the following order.
"1. Heard Mr. Amrish Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner-Union and Mr. Rashesh Rindani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State.
2. Challenge in this petition is made to the Notification of the Government dated 21.01.2014 prohibiting strike in respondent No.4- Establishment, which had Page 1 of 6 C/SCA/3433/2014 ORDER started from 19.12.2013. The said notification is issued in purported exercise of powers under Section 10(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By the said notification, one dispute is also referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Surat for adjudication. It is done in purported exercise of powers under Section 10 (1)(d) of the Act. The terms of the said reference, in substance is to the effect, as to whether the concerned workmen are entitled to wages from 19.12.2013 i.e. the date from which they had gone on strike, until the strike is prohibited.
3. Section 10(3) reads as under.
"Where an industrial dispute has been referred to a Board, (Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal) under this section, the appropriate Government may by order prohibit the continuance of any strike or lock-out in connection with such dispute which may be in existence on the date of reference."
4. On conjoint reading of Section 10(3) and 10(1)(d), prima-facie it transpires that the jurisdiction of the Government to prohibit strike starts, if the dispute(s), which was the cause to go on strike, Page 2 of 6 C/SCA/3433/2014 ORDER is/are referred for adjudication. By the impugned notification, Reference is made to adjudicate the dispute, as to whether the concerned workman are entitled to wages from 19.12.2013 i.e. the date from which they have gone on strike, until the strike is prohibited.
5. The charter of demand of the Union on behalf of the workers is dated 19.11.2013 (Annexure-D). On 22.11.2013, notice is also given to the authorities of the Labour Department (Annexure-E), that in the event the management does not respond positively, from 19.12.2013 the workers would go on strike. The subsequent conciliation proceedings and failure report also refer to these demands, which also include demand for minimum wages, in accordance with law. None of the demands is referred for adjudication. What is referred is as stated above. By all this, the picture which has emerged is that, the Government has prohibited strike by saying that the dispute, as to whether the workers are entitled for wages after remaining on strike or not is already referred for adjudication. The dispute as envisaged in Section 10(1)(d) can not be the demand of the workers to go on strike if they are not paid wages, after going on Page 3 of 6 C/SCA/3433/2014 ORDER the said strike. The demands to go on strike are different, and none of them is the part of the terms of Reference.
6. Under above circumstances, prima- facie, the impugned notification date 21.01.2014 may be unsustainable in law.
7. It is indicated that, pursuant to the impugned notification, the workers have already resumed the duty and there is industrial peace.
8. The consequential order of 6 above, interim or final, may have bearing on industrial peace. To enable the Government to do needful, if so advised, passing of appropriate order is deferred till 12.09.2014.
List for further consideration on 12.09.2014."
2. In view of what was observed in Paras - 6 and 8 of the above quoted order, the Government has issued a notification on 10.09.2014 referring the disputes to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, which was taken on record as reflected in order of this Court dated 12.09.2014.
3. Mr. Amrish Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner Union has submitted that, the grievance of the petitioner Union Page 4 of 6 C/SCA/3433/2014 ORDER is redressed to the substantial extent, in view of order of the Government dated 12.09.2014, and therefore, he does not press this petition, however it is submitted that, some of the demands are not included in the said order of making Reference. It is also submitted that, the workmen had resumed the duties in view of prohibition of the strike by the Government vide notification dated 21.01.2014, but the penal actions were initiated against some of the workers. It is further submitted that though the merits of the notification dated 21.01.2014 may not now be required to be gone into, the Union has grievance that many of the labour laws are not implemented by the respondent employer. It is submitted that by making appropriate observations in this regard, this petition be disposed of.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader as well as learned advocate for the respondent Industry do not contest reserving liberty to the Union to agitate the issues noted above in separate proceedings.
5. Considering the totality, the following order is passed.
5.1 The legality of the impugned notification dated 21.01.2014 is not gone into by this Court, since that is not pressed by the petitioner Union.
5.2 It is ordered that the Government Authorities shall not proceed further with the criminal proceedings, if any, initiated against any of the workmen, for allegedly being on illegal strike, in question.
Page 5 of 6 C/SCA/3433/2014 ORDER5.3 It would be open to the petitioner Union to take recourse to appropriate remedy, with regard to the demands which are not included by the Appropriate Authority in the notification dated 10.09.2014. It would also be open to the petitioner Union to move Appropriate Authority and/or Forum for enforcement of labour laws, in accordance with law, in the respondent Unit. Disposal of this petition would not come in the way of the petitioner Union in this regard.
5.4 Subject to above observations and direction, this petition is disposed of. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.
(PARESH UPADHYAY, J.) mhdave/33 Page 6 of 6