Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. It is the contention of Mr.Muthupandian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these cases, by relying upon various judgments, that the duty of Conciliation Officer is not to adjudicate the issue and he has to work for conciliation and in the event of failure, he has to send the conciliation failure report. It is his contention that in the impugned orders in all these cases, the Conciliation Officers in fact adjudicated the issue on merit and held that the petitioners are not workmen and that the petitioners have received terminal benefits and therefore, they ceased to be the employees and according to him, the Conciliation Officer is not expected to do so under the Industrial Disputes Act. He would rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh vs. State of Bihar [(1989) 2 LLJ 558] apart from the judgment in Sharad Kumar vs. Government of NCT of Delhi [(2002) 2 LLJ 275]. He would submit that even the Government has no power to adjudicate the claims while exercising its function under section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, by relying upon the judgment in MGR Transport Corporation Employees' Union, Chennai vs. State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary, Labour and Employment Department, Chennai and others [(2004) 3 LLN 322].

9. On the other hand, it is the contention of Mr.S.Raveendran for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co., learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent management in all these cases that the Conciliation Officer is entitled to decide prima facie the question whether there is an issue available for the purpose of conciliation at all and to decide the same he can go into the merits of the case. While admitting that the Conciliation Officer cannot adjudicate the dispute, it is his submission that admittedly the petitioners have received the entire monetary benefits in full and final settlement and they are receiving pension also and in such case, it is certainly open to the Conciliation Officer to consider the case to find out as to whether the petitioners who have raised the dispute under section 2(A)(1) of the Act are workmen or not. According to him, such a decision would not amount to adjudication of the issue. He would also submit that it is a right of the Conciliation Officer to decide prima facie as to whether there is a dispute at all in existence for effecting conciliation, by relying upon the following judgments:

19. It is true as correctly submitted by Mr.S.Raveendran, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent management in these cases that, it has been an established legal principle that the object of Industrial Disputes Act is not to encourage the frivolous and endless litigations but to promote industrial harmony. It is also true that the Conciliation Officer cannot be expected to act in mechanical way as it was observed by this Court in Mercury Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner of Labour, Chennai and Others [(2001) 1 LLJ 1214]. But, a reading of section 12(2) makes it very clear that his function involves the inducement of parties for settlement and it is certainly not to adjudicate the claim by detailed discussion on merits of the case, even for deciding whether the claim is frivolous. A claim can prima facie be found as frivolous in cases where the employees are taking stand to go against the admitted records. In cases where the management takes a stand that the workmen have accepted the terms and acted upon, especially when the same is denied by the workmen, it can never be said that there is a prima facie case enabling the Conciliation Officer to adjudicate and consequently, throw out the valuable right of a workman to have his claim adjudicated in legal forum like, Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal.

25. Further, the decision as to whether the petitioners are workmen under section 2(s) of the Act has in fact been adjudicated by the Conciliation Officer in this case. In the impugned orders, the Conciliation Officer has simply accepted the case of 4th respondent management that the petitioners have been designated as Assistant Managers (Technical), etc. and on that basis, the Conciliation Officer has prima facie decided that the petitioners cannot be treated as workmen, especially in the circumstance that it has been the categorical case of the petitioners that even though they were designated in such manner, actually the work done by them was that of a workman either on clerical or technical side. It requires enquiry by a judicial authority and the same cannot be decided by investigation by the administrative authority like, the Conciliation Officer under section 12(2) of the Act. Under similar circumstances, in batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.10894 to 10903 of 2003, by order dated 24.11.2008, after following hierarchy of judgments on the issue in question regarding the power of the Conciliation Officer, I have held as follows: