Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gabriel India Ltd. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 July, 2017
1
Writ Petition No.3950/2017
07.07.2017
Shri G.S. Patwardhan, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Deputy Advocate
General for respondent / State of MP, on advance
notice.
Heard on the question of admission.
ORDER
By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for setting aside of order dated 26.04.2017 (Annexure P/13) passed by the learned Chairman / Presiding Officer, MP Industrial Tribunal, Indore by which objection for rejection of the reference of the petitioner has been rejected.
2. The petitioner is having Pan India Operations and is having one unit located at Dewas. Respondents No.2 and 3 are the Unions operating in the petitioner's plant. The petitioner received a charter of demand from respondent No.2 - Union, and therefore, an application for conciliation was submitted by the petitioner - company to the Conciliation Officer, Deputy Labour Commissioner MP, Indore and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ujjain. The dispute was seized in conciliation by the Conciliation Officer. The petitioner was called before the Government 2 Labour Officer; where it resisted the claim, contending that in presence of the Government Labour Officer, a settlement has been arrived at for the period from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2020; and submitted that fresh charter of demand cannot be entertained. The said objection of the petitioner was not entertained, and therefore, the reference has been made to the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Tribunal, Indore.
3. The petitioner filed an application for rejection of reference on the ground that as per the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the settlement arrived at between the parties i.e. petitioner and respondent No.3
- Union in the course of conciliation proceedings is applicable to all employees, employed in the plant, and therefore, the reference is not maintainable; and prays for rejection of the reference.
4. Learned Chairman of the Industrial Tribunal, Indore rejected the application on the ground that total number of members in the company is 350 and second party has entered into a settlement with another union (respondent No.3) for only 98 permanent workmen, while first party (respondent No.2 - Union) has filed its charter of demands not only for permanent workmen, but also for temporary workmen; and the learned Industrial Tribunal was of the view that at this stage, reference is not liable to be rejected. It also held 3 that the matter requires adjudication and rejected the application with liberty to the petitioner to take such plea in its statement of claim, but at a preliminary stage, it cannot be decided that first party - union is not representing majority of workmen and directed the petitioner to file its claim on the next date of hearing. It is this order which is impugned in the present writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the settlement arrived at the petitioner and respondent No.3 - union and submitted that the learned Industrial Tribunal has committed legal error in rejecting the application.
6. To support the aforesaid, he has drawn our attention to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of The K.C.P. Ltd. v. Presiding Officer & others reported in AIR 1997 SC 2334 and a decision of learned Single Judge of this Court at Indore Bench in the case of HJI - Division of Orient Paper Mill, Anooppur (MP) v. State of Madhya Pradesh & another, Writ Petition No.5570/2010 decided on 30.08.2012.
7. His contention is that under Section 18 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a settlement arrived at between the parties during the course of conciliation proceedings is binding to all parties to the industrial 4 disputes and all other parties were summoned to appear in the proceedings. He submitted that once settlement has been arrived at between the petitioner and respondent No.3 during the conciliation proceedings, it is binding on all members / workmen of the union (respondent No.2), as laid down under Section 18 (3) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
8. In the present case, settlement has been arrived at between the petitioner and respondent No.3 - Union.
9. As per contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, total number of employees are 98, out of which, 61 workmen have already accepted the benefit flowing from the settlement arrived at between the petitioner with respondent No.3 (Shram Shakti Mazdoor Sangh), and therefore, reference is untenable in the eye of law.
10. On due consideration of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, so also the fact that total number of workmen is 350; and the petitioner has entered into a settlement with respondent No.3 / union for only 98 permanent employees, while respondent No.2 has filed its charter of demands not only for permanent workmen, but also for temporary workmen also, we are of the view, that respondent No.3 / union is representing only minority of workmen, the learned Industrial Tribunal rightly 5 rejected the application by observing that the matter requires adjudication and also granted liberty to take such plea in its statement of claim and the same shall be decided along with main reference.
11. For the above mentioned reasons, we are of the view that Writ Petition No.3950/2017 has no merit is accordingly dismissed.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge Judge
Pithawe RC