VIJALPORE NAGAR PANCHAYAT Vs. DAKSHIN GUJARAT SHRAMIK SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner -Vijalpore Nagar Panchayat through its Chairman has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 31.7.1993 passed by the Conciliation Officer-respondent no.2 herein passed in Miscellaneous Application No. IDC/33A-7/93 by which Conciliation Officer has passed an order directing the petitioner to reinstate all those persons whose names have been mentioned in the schedule to the said order as Octroi Clerk.

(2.) It appears that petitioner had given a contract to recover the octroi to one Lalia Octroi Company who according to the petitioner employed the octroi clerks. It is the case of the petitioner that even in the agreement entered into between the said Lalia Octroi Company and the Panchayat, it was specifically provided and mentioned that the contractor has to employee his own persons to collect the octroi and liability and responsibility of such employee would that of octroi Ijardar and Nagar Panchayat would not be in any way responsible with respect to such employees. It appears that some dispute was pending before the Conciliation Officer at the instance of those octroi clerks/ employed by the Octroi Ijardar and during the pendency of the same, the services of the concerned octroi clerks came to be terminated. Therefore, the concerned workmen/ octroi clerks approached the Conciliation Officer under Section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by submitting that their termination by the Panchayat is in breach of Section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the said application the Conciliation Officer adjudicated the dispute with respect to termination of the said octroi clerks (who according to the petitioner octroi clerks were the employees of the Octroi Ijardar) and by impugned order dated 31.7.1993 the Conciliation Officer passed an order directing the petitioner to reinstate all those octroi clerks with continuity of service and full back wages. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner-panchayat has preferred present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Shri Sunil Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the controversy raised in the present petition is now not res-integra in view of the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sarkhej Okaf Nagarpalika Vs. SMT.KANTABEN JASHVANTBHAI & ANR. rendered in Special Civil Application No.17751 of 2006, by which the learned Single Judge has held that Conciliation Officer has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute and has no jurisdiction to pass such an order of reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages. Shri Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Management, Essorpe Mills Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Others reported in 2008(2) Supreme 775. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned order passed by the Conciliation Officer is in absolute and wholly without jurisdiction which deserve to be quashed and set aside.