Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Government Daily Wages ... vs State Of Karnataka on 21 July, 1995
Equivalent citations: ILR1995KAR2653, 1995(5)KARLJ109, (1996)ILLJ1168KANT
ORDER Mohan Kumar, J.
1. When these Writ Petitions came up for preliminary hearing. Smt. Sujatha HCGP, took notice on behalf of respondents. These Writ Petitions are being heard and disposed of as agreed to.
2. The short question raised in this Writ Petition is the competency of the Labour Commissioner to issue a Circular as in the nature impugned herein. The common set of fact in these Cases are that a set of workers employed in the Government Department sought to raise an industrial dispute with respect to the dispute described as coming within the ambit of Section 2(k) of the I.D. Act. The Conciliation Officer relying on the Circular issued by the second respondent (produced as Annexure-A in WP 14515 to 518/95) has declined to conciliate and submit its report to the Government. The second respondent issued the said Circular to the effect that the dispute between the worker and the Company owned by the Government would come within the purview of the Administrative Tribunal and therefore the remedy of the aggrieved worker is to approach the Administrative Tribunal and not to raise industrial dispute. The validity of the said Circular is in question.
3. I have heard Sri Vigneshwara Shastri, Sri K. Subba Rao learned counsel for the petitioners, and Smt. S. Sujatha, HCGP for respondents. It is to be noted that the duties of the Conciliation Officer is specified under Section 12 of the I.D. Act. Section 12 of the Act states that if there be a dispute between the management and the workers, the Conciliation Officer shall conciliate and submit this report on the conciliation to the Government. This Section specifically states that authorities concerned can exercise their power independently and no other Officer in the Department can interfere with the said jurisdiction of the Conciliation Officer. The Section also does not contemplate any higher authorities controlling or abridging or influencing the power of this Conciliation Officer. As can be seen from the Circular issued by the Labour Commissioner referred to above he has directed that the Conciliation Officer need not proceed with the conciliation under Section 12 of the I.D. Act, if in the event, the dispute is between the Government Company and the worker employed in the Government Company. This is a clear case of interference with the Statutory power vested with the authority exercising its power under Section 12. This cannot be therefore sustained.
4. That apart, Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act specifically states that the rights conferred on the workers under the Special Enactments mentioned therein will not be affected by the Administrative Tribunals Act. It means despite the fact that the question raised by the worker may also be adjudicated by the Administrative Tribunal, it does not take away the jurisdiction of the I.D. Act and the adjudicating process constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, (vide and 1981 (2) KLR 164]. In view of the circumstances, the Labour Commissioner cannot interdict the powers of the authorities under the I.D. Act to conciliate the dispute and adjudicate the same. The Labour Commissioner cannot issue Circular restraining the said powers of the Conciliation Officer being exercised under Section 12 of the Act or of the Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore the circular (Annexure A in WP 14515 to 518/95 and Annexure C in WP 27780/1995) issued by the Labour Commissioner cannot be maintained and are quashed. There will be a direction to the third respondent to conciliate the dispute in accordance with Section 12 of the I.D. Act and take appropriate action. With these directions, Writ Petitions are disposed off.