Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 were relieved to join at the new places on transfer vide orders dated 27-11-1990, copies of which have been attached as Annexures P-4, P-5 and P-6.
7. On 28-11-1990, petitioner No. 1 filed a complaint under Section 31 of the Act before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (copy Annexure P-7), in which it was mentioned that the Assistant Labour Commissioner had ordered the closure of the disputes arbitrarily under the pressure of the management which was totally unwarranted. It was requested to reopen the matter. It was further mentioned that management had violated the provisions of Section 33 of the Act by relieving petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, although conciliation proceedings had not come to an end. According to the complaint, conciliation proceedings come to an end seven days after the report is received by the Ministry. A prayer was made to take legal action against the Bank under section 31 of the Act. It may be observed here that a detailed report regarding the conciliation proceedings which came to an end on 27-11-1990 was sent by the Assistant Labour Commissioner to the Secretary Government of India Ministry of Labour, New Delhi on 3-12-1990 (copy of the same has been attached as Annexure P-5). Reply to the complaint, Annexure P-7 was filed by the management before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, on 20-12-1990 passed the following order on the complaint, Annexure P-8 :-
(3) If a settlement of the dispute or of any of the matters in dispute is arrived at in the course of the conciliation proceedings the conciliation officer shall send a report thereof to the appropriate Government (or an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government) together with a memorandum of the settlement signed by the parties to the dispute.
(4) If no such settlement is arrived at, the conciliation officer shall, as soon as practicable after the close of the investigation, send to the appropriate Government a full report setting forth the steps taken by him for ascertaining the facts and circumstances relating to the dispute and for bringing about a settlement thereof, together with a full statement of such facts and circumstances and the reasons on account of which, in his opinion, a settlement could not be arrived at.
13. Rule 9 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 envisages that the conciliation officer on receipt of notice of strike shall forthwith arrange to interview both the employer and workmen concerned with the dispute at a given place and time, as he may deem fit. If on calling the workman, who raised a dispute, the conciliation officer finds that the concerned workman has failed to appear, there is no duty cast upon him to go ahead with the matter.
14. Now coming the second aspect of the matter, Mr. Verma on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the conditions of service in regard to any matter connected with the dispute are to remain unchanged during the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before the conciliation officer. For this, reliance on section 33(1)(a) of the Act, was placed, which is quoted as under:-

Mr. Verma submitted that the conciliation proceedings shall be deemed to have concluded under section 20(2)(b) of the Act, a report of the conciliation officer is received by the appropriate Government that no settlement has been arrived at. According to Mr. Verma the conciliation proceeding can be taken to have been concluded sometime after 3-12-1990, when the report by the conciliation officer was sent to the appropriate Government. However, according to him, before the conciliation proceedings were concluded, the petitioners workmen were sought to be transferred on 27-11-1990 vide Annexures P-4, P-5 and P-6. This, according to Mr. Verma, amounted to the change of service conditions of the petitioners in regard to the matter connected with the dispute i. e. transfer of the petitioners and is, therefore, there was violation of Section 33 . of the Act (supra). According to Mr. Verma, since provisions of Section 33 had been contravened by State Bank of India, proceedings should be initiated against them under Section 31 of the Act, which is in the following terms:-