GNFC PENSIONERS ASSO Vs. M O BHATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.10.2005 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour and Conciliation, Bharuch, in Conciliation Case No. 36 of 2005 whereby the reference was refused on the ground that there exists no relationship between master and servant.

(2.) LEARNED advocate Ms. Hina Desai for learned advocate Mr. Mansuri for the petitioner contended that in view of the representation made by the petitioner at Annexure-B which clearly includes pension and clause 44 at page No. 81 of the petition clearly shows that pension is a part of settlement, respondent No. 1 has wrongly refused to refer the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court. Clause 44 at page No. 81 is reproduced hereinafter:

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent No. 1 has supported the order of respondent No. 1 and submitted that there is no relationship of master and servant between the petitioner and the respondent. He submitted that there is no industrial dispute between the members of the petitioner Union and the respondent Company. He has pointed out the definition of workman and there is no relationship of employer and workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the dispute between the petitioner and the management is not an industrial dispute as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act.