Gujarat High Court
Miscellaneous vs State on 15 June, 2010
Author: H.K.Rathod
Bench: H.K.Rathod
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6856/2010 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6856 of 2010
=========================================================
MISCELLANEOUS
INDUSTRIES MAJDOOR SANGH - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH LABOUR COMMISSIONER & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
UT MISHRA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS SACHI MATHUR, AGP for Respondent(s) :
1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
4.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 15/06/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties.
The petitioner is challenging the order passed by Conciliation Officer under Rule 66(4) of Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966 dated 17th May 2010. The Conciliation Officer has come to conclusion by considering the Members of petitioner Union 158 granted two protected workmen in favour of petitioner which has been objected by learned advocate Mr. Mishra.
Learned advocate Mr. Mishra submitted that there was no application given by Ahmedabad Jilla Mazdoor Sangh for being joined as a party, even though, Conciliation Officer has joined Ahmedabad Jilla Mazdoor Sangh as a party to the conciliation proceedings. He also raised contention before this Court that no application is made by Ahmedabad Jilla Mazdoor Sangh to Conciliation Officer under Rule 66(4) of Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966. He submitted that Conciliation Officer has committed gross error in deciding application submitted by petitioner. He also submitted that employer has committed blunder in granting six representatives as protected workmen by letter dated 22nd September 2009 before 30th September 2009, therefore, he submitted that Conciliation Officer has not properly understood the relevant provisions of Sec.33(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 r/w. Rule 66 of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966.
I have considered his submissions and I have also perused the order passed by Conciliation Officer. The Ahmedabad Jilla Mazdoor Sangh, Ahmedabad has sent the name of protected workmen to employer on 19th September 2009 and requested the Management to declare six persons as protected workmen. After receiving list of protected workmen and request made by Ahmedabad Jilla Mazdoor Sangh by letter dated 19th September 2009, the Management vide letter dated 22nd September 2009 had declared five protected workmen. Similarly, same request was made by petitioner - Union on 19th September 2009 demanding protected workmen from Management, which request has been rejected by Management on 5th October 2009, therefore, on 22nd October 2009, dispute has been raised by petitioner Union before Conciliation Officer.
The matter was heard by Conciliation Officer on 26th November 2009 to 28th April 2010 and both parties have made oral as well as written submissions. According to Management, by letter dated 28th January 2010, in all, 330 employees are working with Management, therefore, minimum five protected workmen are required to be declared protected workman by Management. But, on 20th September 2009 only, five protected workmen have been declared. But, considering the demand made by petitioner Union and also scrutinized by Conciliation Officer, the Members of petitioner Union which comes to 158, therefore, Conciliation Officer has granted or alloted two protected workmen in favour of petitioner Union out of total five protected workmen. Therefore, Conciliation Officer has alloted two protected workmen to petitioner Union looking to membership of 158 members and remaining members are of Ahmedabad Jilla Mazdoor Sangh, therefore, three protected workmen have been alloted to Ahmedabad Jilla Mazdoor Sangh. Therefore, Conciliation Officer has modified the order passed by Management while exercising the powers under Rule 66(4) of Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966.
According to my opinion, contentions raised by learned advocate Mr. Mishra cannot be accepted and Conciliation Officer has rightly examined the matter and after considering the membership of petitioner Union, two protected workmen have been rightly alloted to petitioner Union and three have been rightly alloted to Ahmedabad Jilla Mazdoor Sangh. For that, Conciliation Officer has not committed any error which requires interference by this Court. The Management has given reply to Conciliation Officer (Page 19 Annexure 'D') and according to Management, the demand, which has been made by petitioner Union for declaring six protected workmen, is beyond the provisions of Sec.33(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, therefore, it was rejected. The Management has requested to Conciliation Officer that when more than one Union are working in Management, then, it is a duty of Conciliation Officer to find out the correct membership of each Union and protected workman is required to be alloted accordingly. The Same facts have been considered by Conciliation Officer and considering 158 members of petitioner Union, two protected workmen have been alloted by order dated 17th May 2010. For that, Conciliation Officer has not committed any error which requires interference by this Court. The petitioner Union is entitled one protected workman after considering 100 members which is specified in Section 33(4) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There is a provision in ID Act that minimum five protected workmen are required to be alloted by Management. That aspect has been rightly examined by Conciliation Officer and considering 158 members of petitioner Union out of 330 members or employees working with Management, remaining employees are members of Ahmedabad Jilla Mazdoor Sangh and accordingly, three members of Ahmedabad Jilla Mazdoor Sangh have been considered as protected workmen. For that, no legal provisions or Rules have been violated by Conciliation Officer in passing such order on 17th May 2010. Therefore, contentions raised by learned advocate Mr. Mishra cannot be accepted, hence, rejected. The Conciliation Officer has not committed any error which requires interference by this Court.
There is no substance in present petition, therefore, present petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
[H.K. RATHOD, J.] #Dave Top