Gujarat High Court
Karl Marx General Labour Unionthro Its ... vs Assistant Labour on 4 February, 2013
Author: K.S.Jhaveri
Bench: Ks Jhaveri
KARL MARX GENERAL LABOUR UNIONTHRO ITS SECRETARY/AUTHORISESD....Petitioner(s)V/SASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER C/SCA/305/2013 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 305 of 2013 =========================================================== KARL MARX GENERAL LABOUR UNIONTHRO ITS SECRETARY/AUTHORISESD....Petitioner(s) Versus ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER & 3....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR NAYAN D PAREKH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR. MANAN MAHETA, LEARNED AGP FOR the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 3 MR RASESH H PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4 MR.HEMANG H PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 04/02/2013 ORAL ORDER
1. RULE.
Mr. Manan Maheta, learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Parikh, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.3.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing today.
3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 30.11.2012 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Shram Bhavan, Ahmedabad, respondent No-1 herein, whereby the Commissioner has refused the references of the petitioner-Union on the ground that some of the members of the Union have resigned from the petitioners -Union.
The short facts leading to filing of this petition are that the petitioner is a registered Union and it ventilates the grievances of its members. On 30.8.2012, the petitioner-Union filed a written complaint before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ahemedabad, by stating that respondent No.4-management is exploiting their permanent workmen by taking permanent nature of work from the contract employees.
4.1. After several correspondences, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, vide order dated 30.11.2012, rejected the references on the ground that some of the members of the Union have resigned from the petitioners -Union. Thereafter, on 1.1.2013, the petitioner-Union further made representation and complaint before the respondent authorities with respect to unfair Trade Practices adopted by the respondent-Company. However, the complaints of Unfair Trade Practices made by the Petitioner-Union have not been entertained and it has not been forwarded for adjudication. Hence, this petition.
5. I have heard learned advocates appearing for respective parties and perused the material on record. It appears from the record that the references of the petitioner-Union has been rejected by the Assistant Labour Commissioner only on the ground that 38 members of the petitioner-Union have resigned from the Petitioner-Union and they have shown desire that the petitioner-Union is not representing them. This Court is of the view that the Commissioner ought to have seen that the dispute raised by the other members, who are still represented by the petitioner-Union, is similar to that raised by the erstwhile 38 members of the petitioner-Union.
6. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the impugned order appears to be erroneous and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ahmedbad, for deciding the same afresh qua rest of the members of the petitioner-Union, if any. The respondent-authority shall decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
With the above observations, the petition is disposed of. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(K.S.JHAVERI,J.) pawan Page 4 of 4