DAKOR TEMPLE COMMITTEE Vs. GUJARAT KAMDAR MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Page 1798 The petitioner is a Dakor Temple Committee. The petitioner has challenged the interim order passed by Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad dated 11.8.2006 in Complaint (IT) No. 9 of 2005. The Industrial Tribunal has directed, to petitioner that during the pendency of complaint under Section 33A, to continue the interim relief which was granted by Industrial Tribunal on 28.12.2005 till the complaint is decided by Industrial Tribunal.

(2.) Learned Advocate, Mr. Clerk, appearing on behalf of petitioner, made following submissions relying upon the decision in support of his submissions.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned Advocate, Mr. Clerk and also considered the decisions referred to by learned Advocate, Mr. Clerk. I have also perused the order passed by Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad in Complaint No. 9 of 2005. The Reference (IT) Demand No. 51 of 2005 is in respect to demand raised by Union by Demand Notice dated 25.3.2003 for wage revision and other general demand of employees of petitioner. The charter of demand wherein revised scale in respect to different category and other service benefits are demanded by Union. This demand is referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad being Reference (IT) No. 51 of 2005. During the pendency of this reference, the workman those who have filed complaint under Section 33A of the I.D. Act, 1947 are concerned workmen of the pending reference. Therefore, they filed complaint with interim relief application not to terminate the service of concerned workmen those who have filed complaint during the pendency of reference. The complaint was filed on 28.12.2005 by authorized representative of the workmen. Along with complaint, interim relief application was also filed on the same day. The Industrial Tribunal has granted ad-interim relief on 28.12.2005. Vide Exh.9 written statement was field by petitioner raising certain contentions that petitioner is not an 'industry' and these are the workmen who are not concerned with pending reference and no breach has been committed by petitioner of Section 33 of the I.D. Act, 1947. The authority of Union Secretary has been challenged and these complainants were working with the contractor, whose contract was over on 31.12.2005. Thereafter, no other contractor has been appointed by petitioner and therefore complaint has to be dismissed. The petitioner has also pointed out in the written statement that they do not have any requirement in light of the special security arrangement made by the State Government in respect to other religious temples. The reply is also filed against the interim application by the petitioner. Thereafter, the Tribunal has examined the matter and come Page 1800 to the conclusion that whatever the contentions raised by petitioner before the Tribunal are mixed question of facts and law, same requires evidence as they are disputed question of facts and, therefore, at this stage, while examining the interim relief application, same should not have to be decided and that has to be decided at the time of final adjudication of the complaint and reference. The Industrial Tribunal has considered that during the pendency of reference of question in respect of better condition of service, if service of concerned complaints are terminated, then, reference become meaningless or infructuous so far it concerned to complainants. The Tribunal has also considered the decision of this Court reported in 2005 LLR 168 and in SCA No. 5122 of 2004 and other relevant decisions. Ultimately, the Tribunal has considered that initially status-quo order passed by Industrial Tribunal on 28.12.2005 which remain continued for a further period of about more than 7 months and considering the important fact that on 22.7.2005, petitioner has invited tender for giving new contract for security staff. The Industrial Tribunal has considered the decision of this Court in SCA No. 4406 of 2005 and 4422 of 2006. After considering this, the Tribunal has continued the interim order which was passed on 28.12.2005 till the complaint is finally decided by the Tribunal. This order has been passed on 11.8.2006.