Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The order passed by the Conciliation Officer is challenged in this appeal on several grounds. According to the appellant, the order transferring the 140 employees was not passed during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings and, therefore, the Conciliation Officer did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the respondent no.1-Union under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to the appellant-Company, the conciliation proceedings commenced on 19.07.2011 when the demands of the respondent no.1 were admitted and the notice was issued to the appellant-Company under Rule 11 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957. It is the case of the appellant-Company that the meetings held before 19.07.2011 were pre-

conciliation meetings and, hence, it cannot be said that the appellant-

Company had transferred the employees during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings by the order dated 14.07.2011.

5 lpa355.11

4. It is submitted that assuming that the conciliation proceedings were pending before the conciliation officer on 14.07.2011, i.e. the date on which the 140 employees were transferred, the conciliation officer did not have jurisdiction to stay the transfer orders as under the provisions of Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Conciliation Officer is not empowered to adjudicate the complaint. It is submitted that under the provisions of Section 33-A(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, only an Arbitrator, a Labour Court, a Tribunal or a National Tribunal is empowered to adjudicate upon the complaint as if it were a dispute referred to or pending before it. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Section 33-A of the Act clearly demarcates the power of the authorities and the Conciliation Officer was not justified in staying the orders of transfer by the order dated 21.07.2011.

6. The respondent no.1, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the Conciliation Officer and submitted that the case of the appellant that the proceedings held before 19.07.2011 were pre-conciliation proceedings and not conciliation proceedings is incorrect. According to the learned counsel, Section 2(e) of the Industrial Disputes Act, defines Conciliation proceedings to mean any proceedings held by a Conciliation Officer or Board under the Act and the provision does not speak of pre-conciliation or post conciliation proceedings. It is the case of the respondent no.1 that the notice under Rule 11 of the Bombay Industrial Court Rules was issued to the appellant-Company as early as on 18.03.2011 and, hence, it cannot be said that the proceedings held prior to 19.07.2011 were pre-conciliation proceedings. It is submitted on behalf of respondent No.1 that in view of the provisions of Section 2(e) of the Industrial Disputes Act and in view of the fact that a notice was indeed issued to the appellant company on 18.03.2011 under Section 11 of the Bombay Industrial Court Rules, it cannot be said that the conciliation proceedings had not commenced and were at the pre-conciliation stage.

7 lpa355.11

7. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent No.1 that the Conciliation Officer is entitled to entertain a complaint under Section 33-A(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act and is further entitled to investigate it in accordance with the provisions of Rule 65 of the Bombay Industrial Court Rules. According to the counsel for the respondent No.1, since the order transferring the 140 employees was passed during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings on 14.07.2011 and since the transfer was not in accordance with the conditions of service, the Conciliation Officer was justified in passing the order staying the transfer.