Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. From the above rules, it can be seen that two separate procedures have been laid down. One for holding of conciliation proceeding in public utility service when a notice of strike or lock out is given. In such a case it is provided that on receipt of a notice of strike or lock out given under Rule 76 or 77, the conciliation officer shall forthwith arrange to interview both the employer and the workmen concerned at such places and at such times as he may deem fit and shall endeavour to bring about a settlement of the dispute in question. On the other hand Rule 11 of the said Rules covers the situation of conciliation proceedings in other cases i.e. cases other than conciliation proceedings in public utility service wherein a notice of strike or lock out is given. In such a situation it is provided under Rule 11 that where a conciliation officer receives any information about an existing or apprehended industrial dispute relating to a public utility service, but no notice of strike or lock out is given under Rule 76 or Rule 77 or where the industrial dispute does not relate to a public utility service and if the conciliation officer considered it necessary to intervene in the dispute, he shall give formal intimation in writing to the parties concerned declaring his intention to commence conciliation proceedings with effect from such date as may be specified therein.

6. The point of difference to be noted between the two situations is that in cases where conciliation proceedings pertain to a dispute in public utility service where a notice of strike or lock out is given, conciliation officer has to forthwith arrange to hold conciliation proceedings and endeavour to bring about a settlement of the dispute. On the other hand where though conciliation officer has received information about an existing or apprehended dispute which either relates to public utility service but with respect to which no notice of strike or lock out is given under Rule 76 or 77, or where industrial dispute does not relate to a public utility service, in such a case the conciliation officer if he considers it necessary to intervene in the dispute, he is required to give formal intimation in writing to the parties concerned declaring his intention to commence conciliation proceedings with effect from such date as may be specified therein.

8. When in Rule 11, the legislature talks of the requirement of the conciliation officer to give formal intimation in writing to the parties declaring his intention to commence conciliation proceedings with effect from such date as may be specified therein has also some significance. In this regard one may advert to the provision of Section 20 of the Industrial Disputes Act which provides for commencement and conclusion of the conciliation proceedings. Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Industrial Disputes Act provides that the conciliation proceedings shall be deemed to have commenced on the date on which a notice of strike or lock out under section 22 is received by the conciliation officer or on the date of the order referring the dispute to a Board, as the case maybe. Here one may notice Sub-section (1) of Section 20 is a deeming provision providing for fiction that the moment notice of strike or lock out is received by the conciliation officer, conciliation proceedings shall be deemed to have commenced. These provisions would therefore, apply in a case where the dispute pertains to public utility service and wherein notice of strike or lock out as required under section 22 has been received by the conciliation officer. Subsection (1) of Section 20 does not provide for commencement of conciliation proceedings in other cases. Ordinarily therefore, we will have to find out from other provisions as to when can it be stated that a conciliation proceeding has commenced. To reiterate, Sub-section (1) of Section 20 provides for a deemed commencement of the conciliation proceedings in a case where notice of strike or lock out under section 22 of the said Act has been received by the conciliation officer. In the present case, no such notice was received as noted earlier. The question is therefore, in such cases when can it be said that conciliation proceedings commenced.

1. Rule 11 of the said Rules in this regard provides that in such a case if the conciliation officer considers it necessary to intervene in the dispute, he shall give formal intimation in writing to the parties concerned declaring his intention to commence conciliation proceedings with effect from such date as may be specified therein. Commencement of conciliation proceedings in all cases not covered by Sub-section (1) of Section 20 would therefore have to be held from the date where the formal intimation in writing has been given by conciliation officer declaring his intention to commence the conciliation proceedings with effect from such date as may be specified. It can therefore, be seen that conciliation proceedings would commence when the conciliation officer gives a formal intimation in writing to the parties concerned declaring his intention to commence the conciliation proceedings with effect from such date as may be specified therein. It is only for the cases covered under Subsection (1) of Section 20 that a deeming fiction is created to provide that conciliation proceedings shall be deemed to have commenced on the date on which notice of strike or lock out under Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act is received. In the present case admittedly, no such notice under section 22 was received. Again admittedly, conciliation officer never issued any formal notice under Rule 11 of the said Rules expressing his desire to commence the conciliation proceedings. In that view of the matter in my opinion conciliation proceedings had never commenced before the conciliation officer which would require the employer to follow the procedure laid down under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act.