Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: conciliation order in Devendra Kumar And Another vs Presiding Officer And 2 Others on 18 January, 2019Matching Fragments
1. Heard Sri Jamal Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Atul Mehra, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The present writ petition is directed against the award dated 28.1.2015 framed by the Labour Court, Ghaziabad in adjudication case no. 71 of 2013. By that award, the Labour Court has declared, the State Government did not have the power to amend the reference already made and/or to add parties to the reference already made.
3. Briefly, by order dated 28.1.2015, conciliation proceedings arose in C.B. Case no. 1 of 2005 with respect to the following 37 workmen:
4. The dispute essentially was with respect to regularization and consequential benefits claimed by the aforesaid 37 workmen (hereinafter referred to as the Workmen). That cause was espoused before the conciliation officer by the Yamaha Motor Employees Union, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as the Union), under Clause 2 of the U.P. Conciliation Order, (hereinafter referred to as the Order), issued under Section 3(d) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to as the Act).
5. Admittedly, those conciliation proceedings failed. Again, at the instance of the Union, vide order dated 20.02.2004, the following reference was made by the State Government under Section 4K of the Act:
14. The change made was to add the names of the persons who may represent the Workmen. It has been submitted, the change in the same did not amount to an amendment of the reference. It was only a right to represent the Workmen in a dispute that had already been referred for adjudication. In view of the fact the Union abandoned those Workmen, that change became necessary, in the interest of justice.
15. As to the person who may represent the Workmen, the right to represent the Workmen in conciliation proceedings arises under Clause 2 of the U.P. Conciliation Order (hereinafter referred to as the Order). It reads:
39. Also, by virtue of Rule 40 of the Rules, such person who may be eligible to be selected to represent the Workmen under the Conciliation Order may be similarly nominated by the affected Workmen to represent them before the Conciliation Board or the Labour Court or the Tribunal.
40. The judgment in the case of Munni Lal and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (supra) is wholly distinguishable on facts, inasmuch as in that case, the Union that was named in the reference order and thus authorised to represent the Workmen continued to exist and espouse the cause before the Industrial Tribunal. Certain workmen still filed an application seeking permission to be allowed to represent before the Tribunal. While the Industrial Tribunal and the Labour Commissioner rejected such application, that rejection order was confirmed by this Court in the aforesaid case. Thus, that was not a case of the Union having abandoned the cause espoused by it. That case, therefore, stands on a completely different footing, inasmuch, in that case, as a fact once representation was allowed to be made through the Union, no duplication would be permissible during the continuance of the representation of the workmen being made by the Union.