KALANIKETAN BOMBAYWALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The employer has challenged the jurisdiction of the Conciliation Officer to enter into conciliation proceedings and of the appropriate Government to make a reference of the demands raised by the third respondent-Union. The challenge is mainly on two grounds : (1) that the demand is not an industrial dispute because it is not sponsored by an appreciable number of workmen and large number of workmen have already expressed their will by a signed statement that they do not support the demand and (2) that there is already an operative settlement and, therefore, till that settlement is operative and is not terminated, these demands cannot be made.

(2.) The original demands were raised in conciliation proceedings Nos. 225 and 226 of 1990. At that time, out of 60 employees of the petitioner undertaking, 30 were members of this respondent No. 3-Union. During the pendency of these conciliation proceedings, services of 14 workmen, members of the respondent No. 3-Union came to be terminated and, therefore, complaints-applications were made to the Conciliation Officer being Nos. 1705 to 1718 of 1990. On 18/06/1990, in that proceeding, Conciliation Officer made a noting in the proceedings sheet that the parties have settled that dispute and the employer had reinstated all the workmen with continuity of service and, therefore, by that conciliation, that dispute had come to an end and the Union had requested that the complaintapplications be filed. This note is signed by both the parties and a copy thereof has been produced at page 28 of this petition by way of Annexure 'B' and it is submitted that by the said settlement, respondent No. 3-Union had given up all the demands raised by them in Conciliation Case Nos. 225 and 226 of 1990. As far as Conciliation Case Nos. 225 and 226 of 1990 are concerned, there is no settlement, but on that day, the Union had withdrawn the demands and the conciliation cases were filed.

(3.) According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this withdrawal of demands was a sort of package settlement and the petitioneremployer, as a part of that settlement, reinstated 14 workmen and the Union had given up all the demands and because of this settlement, raising of the fresh dispute of the same demands is barred and the second contention is that the petitioner-employer has about 66 employees and the present demands were stated to have been supported by 14 workmen only out of which three employees have disputed their signatures and two employees have been dismissed from service and, therefore, out of 14, only 9 workmen can be said to be surviving for considering as to whether there is any industrial dispute supported by appreciable number of workmen. As far as the question of two employees who are stated to have been dismissed is concerned, it is not shown as to when they came to be dismissed; whether after the demands were raised or before, because it is clear that when the complaints against termination were settled, they were reinstated in service. Within two months thereafter, the present demands are raised by the Union and at that time, it was not shown whether they were out of service, but admittedly today, they are not in service and they have been dismissed from service and their disputes are pending before the appropriate authorities for adjudication. As far as other three employees are concerned, they have disputed their signatures and filed statements before the Conciliation Officer that the signed statements and signatures purported to be theirs are not theirs. At this stage, it is difficult to decide this question finally because the dispute regarding signatures can be appropriately decided on expert evidence, but on comparison, it prima facie appears that the signatures are of same persons, but for the purposes of the present argument, we may proceed on the basis that the present dispute is by nine workmen only out of about 65 employees. Incidentally, these 14 workmen are the same who were dismissed and reinstated earlier. Rest of the workmen have signed statements that they are not supporting the demands and they are not members of any Union and will never become members of any Union in future.