Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed Jh jkgqy dqekj pkSgku iq= Jh jksgu flag in iSUVªh CokW; dh lsok,W fnukWd 03&03&2015 dks lekIr dh x;h FkhA mlds i'pkr i{kksa ds e/; le>kSrk fnukWd 18&08&2015 ds vuqlkj leLr ns; leLr miknkuksa@ xzsP;qVh dk Hkqxrku pSd }kjk oknh Jfed }kjk LosPNk ls izkIr dj fy;k tkuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfud gS\ ;fn ugha] rks Jfed vius lsok;kstdksa ls fdl fgrykHk@ vkuqrks"k ¼fjyhQ½ dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS ,oa vU; fdl fooj.k lfgrA^^ The present petition has been filed with the assertion that on the application moved by respondent no.3, Conciliation Case No. 146 of 2015 was registered. During conciliation proceedings, in order to avoid litigation, a registered settlement dated 18.08.2015 was arrived between the parties wherein respondent no.3 had agreed to withdraw his claim in the conciliation case no.146 of 2015 as also under the Payment of Wages Act namely case No.271 of 2015. He had further conceded not to file any claim or action against the petitioner-company or the contractor, as the case may be, in respect of the matter arising out of or relating to employment or termination of employment by them.

Thus the contention of the petitioner is that under the said agreement, the respondent-workman had entered into a settlement to leave the services of the employer without further protest and Rs.3,45,376/- was paid to the respondent no.3. The instant writ petition has been filed with the assertion that after entering into settlement, it was not open for the workman to proceed with the conciliation case. The proceeding of the conciliation case no.146 of 2015 had, thus, been brought to an end in terms of the settlement vide order dated 18.08.2015.

Under Section 6-D of the Act' 1947, the proceedings before the labour Court or tribunal shall be deemed to have commenced on the date of reference of the dispute to adjudication and concluded on the date on which the award becomes enforceable under Section 6-A. There is no dispute about the fact that once the reference is made for adjudication, the jurisdiction to decide the dispute lies with the tribunal. In any case, the Conciliation Officer has no jurisdiction to enter into the merits of the dispute between the parties. In case, no agreement is arrived between the parties in the conciliation process, it has to send the dispute before the State Government for making reference who shall satisfy itself about the existence of industrial dispute on appreciation of material before it.

In the instant case, it appears that the conciliation proceedings in case No.146 of 2015 was registered on the application filed by the workman who had raised a dispute with regard to his termination w.e.f 03.03.2015. When the conciliation proceedings were going on an alleged agreement dated 18.08.2015 was filed before the Conciliation Officer to state that a settlement had been arrived between the parties and the workman was satisfied with the payment received by him. It appears that the Conciliation case no.146 of 2015 was decided on 18.08.2015 by the Conciliation Officer on the alleged agreement which was filed before it.