GUJARAT MAZDOOR PANCHAYAT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Union which is a registered Trade Union of employees, working under respondent No. 2-Company has brought in challenge in the present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the order at Annexure "A" passed by respondent No. 1-State of Gujarat in Labour and Employment Department on 22-11-1990 refusing to refer industrial disputes raised by the petitioner-Union for adjudication of the appropriate authority under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act" for short).

(2.) In order to appreciate the grievances of the petitioner-Union against the impugned order, a few relevant facts leading to this petition deserve to be noted at the outset.

(3.) Introductory facts : The petitioner-Union has filed this petition on behalf of 579 workmen who are said to be members of the petitioner- Union. The grievance of the petitioner is that they are treated to be workmen of labour contractors. These labour contractors are joined as respondents Nos. 3 to 5 in this petition. The petitioner had demanded permanency and certain other benefits for these workmen, as according to the petitioner they are workmen of respondent No. 2-Company and the contractors are a mere camouflage and represent mere paper arrangement. It is also alleged that respondent No. 3 is a public sector undertaking and being instrumentality of the State can be said to be State falling within Art. 12 of Constitution. The petitioner submitted a charter of demands to respondent No. 2 on 2-4-1990. The workmen demanded through the petitioner-Union that they should be treated as direct employees of the respondent-Company from the first date of joining of their service. They also demanded that they should be paid double overtime for Sundays and weekly-off days and that this payment should be made with 12% interest. In demand No. 3, they sought money equivalent of various leave benefits which were not offered to them and demand No. 4 was for payment of Rs. 200/- per month with retrospective effect because these workmen were not given canteen facilities, safety appliances, uniform etc. These demands were taken into conciliation by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Baroda. After verifying the membership of the petitioner, the conciliation officer admitted these demands on 10-9-1990. The petitioner submitted its statement of justification on 9-7-1990 which is at Annexure "D" to the petition. A list of 570 workmen was annexed to this statement. As conciliation failed, a failure report was submitted by conciliation officer on 1-10-1990 to the secretary of the first respondent. It is thereafter that the first respondent has passed the impugned order refusing to refer these four demands for adjudication of the appropriate authority under the I. D. Act. The ground given for refusing reference is that as the contractor's employees are not employees of the institution, that is respondent No. 2, reference is not made. It appears that thereafter, the petitioner submitted a review application at Annexure "B" placing reliance on three Supreme Court decisions on the basis of which reconsideration of the petitioner's request for reference was sought for. This review application has remained unprocessed and unanswered by respondent No. 1 till date.