Gujarat High Court
Secretary Ipcl Employees Asso vs Commisioner Of Labour on 6 February, 2013
Author: K.S.Jhaveri
Bench: Ks Jhaveri
SECRETARY IPCL EMPLOYEES ASSO.....Petitioner(s)V/SCOMMISIONER OF LABOUR GUJARAT STATE C/SCA/10437/2004 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10437 of 2004 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ SECRETARY IPCL EMPLOYEES ASSO.....Petitioner(s) Versus COMMISIONER OF LABOUR GUJARAT STATE & 1....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR NK MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR SP MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS AMITA SHAH, LD.ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1 NANAVATI ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 06/02/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT
By way of present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Association has prayed for as under :
27(A) Allow this petition;
(B) Direct the respondent No.1 to re-consider and review his order at Annexure-D of the petition and to make a fresh order for making reference of the dispute relating to breach of settlement and unfair labour practices committed by respondent No.2 to the Industrial Tribunal, Baroda.
(C) For such other or further orders as may be deemed necessary and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.
The facts in brief are that one settlement under section 2(p) read with section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was arrived at between the petitioner-Association and the respondent No.2 outside conciliation proceedings, which inter alia provided for restructuring of posts and number of manpower posts of operators, number of manpower in each shift for different plants, section, etc. and also redeployment of workmen on different posts, etc. based on such restructuring of manpower in the plants and shifts and based on required number of operators, etc. to be kept shit-wise. In breach of the said settlement, the respondent No.2 herein refused to implement restructuring, for providing adequate number of operators, manpower in plants, shift-wise, the respondent No.2 also failed and neglected the implementation of settlement provisions for redeployment of operators and other workmen by violating provisions of the settlement.
Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-Union gave a strike notice in the prescribed manner as required under section 22(1) of the Act to the respondent No.2 with intimation to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vadodara, who arranged for hearing of the matter and since the matter could not be settled in conciliation proceedings, the said conciliation officer submitted his failure report of conciliation with the reasons to the Appropriate Government. The respondent No.1 acting as the Appropriate Government under section 12(5) of the Act refused to make a reference of the dispute raised by the petitioner. Hence, present petition.
Having considered the contentions raised by the learned advocates for the respective parties, averments made in the petition and the documentary evidence produced on record, it transpires that the respondent No.1 has after taking into consideration the pros and cons of the matter rightly refused to refer the dispute raised to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. It is required to be noted that the respondent No.1 has considered the evidence on record as well as the report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. It is required to be noted that in his report dated 31st June, 2003 the Assistant Commissioner of Labour has categorically reported that the proceedings for conciliation have been resulted in failure though given sufficient opportunity to the parties. It is required to be noted that the order passed by the respondent No.1 is just and proper looking to the fact that the settlement under the provision of section 2(p) has already been over. Further, it is required to be noted that the respondent No.1 has rightly observed in the impugned order that the demand to raise the reference for breach of settlement is not required to be accepted. The respondent No.1 has rightly observed that there are other legal provisions qua the demand raised by the petitioner and, therefore, the respondent No.1 has rightly refused to refer the dispute raised for adjudication since it was not fit for adjudication. Here in the present case, the respondent No.1 on a proper examination of the demand came to a conclusion that the the demands do not merit a reference, which is based on the report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour.
It is one of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that this Court may take a note of the fact that what has been challenged by the petitioner by way of present petition is not the order dated 17th April, 2003 passed by the respondent No.1 refusing to refer the dispute raised for adjudication, but the report at Annexure-D made by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. Looking to the very prayer clause of the petition as quoted hereinabove, it clearly transpires that there is substance in the aforementioned contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. On perusal of the very prayer clause (B), it is crystal clear that the petitioner has challenged the report dated 31st June, 2003 submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour and not the order dated 17th April, 2003, whereby the respondent No.1 has refused to refer the dispute raised for adjudication, which goes to the root of the matter.
Insofar as the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Sarva Shramik Sangh v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others, (2009) 11 SCC 609, is concerned, it is on record that in the present case the dispute is only qua alleged breach of certain clauses stipulated in the settlement arrived at between the parties, whereas the facts of the above cited case are totally different.
In view of aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the respondent No.1 is just and proper. The respondent No.1 has assigned cogent and convincing reasons for arriving at the conclusion. Over and above the reasons assigned hereinabove, I adopt the reasons assigned by the respondent No.1 and do not find any illegality much less any perversity in the findings recorded. I am in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the respondent No.1. No case is made out to interfere with the findings recorded by the respondent No.1. Hence, present petition deserves to be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the present petition fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) Aakar Page 6 of 6