AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT SERVICE Vs. HISAMUDDIN DOSUMIYA SHAIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Service of Rule is waived by learned Advocate Mr. H. K. Rathod for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and by learned Advocate Mr. M. B. Gandhi for respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9. Upon joint request and considering the element of urgency involved in the petition, this matter is taken up for final hearing forthwith. The petitioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service (A.M.T.S.), which is a part of the functioning of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has assailed the ad interim (ex-parte) order recorded by the Industrial Tribunal at Ahmedabad, dated 5-12-1996, by filing this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. By virtue of the impugned ad interim order, the Industrial Tribunal granted ad interim injunction in terms of para 7(B) of the complaint filed by the respondents under Sec. 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I. D. Act) against the Circular No. 62 dated 30-11-1996, issued for and on behalf of the A.M.T.S. In view of the ad interim injunction, the petitioner-A.M.T.S. is restrained from preparing the duty list in accordance with the decision rendered by the Industrial Tribunal in Complaint No. 9 of 1989 and confirmed in Special Civil Application No. 8885 of 1989 by the Division Bench of this Court dated December 29, 1989.

(2.) According to the case of the petitioner, the existing practice of A.M.T.S. was that the duty list was prepared by the Union which was accepted by the Transport Manager. The In-charge Transport Manager and Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation when took over the charge of the functioning of the A.M.T.S., the petitioner-A.M.T.S. noticed that the action of the management in accepting the duty list prepared by the Union for the drivers as well as conductors is wholly unjustified and inconsistent with the award of the Industrial Tribunal passed in Reference (I.T.) No. 62 of 1962 and the decision of a Division Bench of this Court. It is, therefore, contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned Circular No. 62 dated 30-11-1996 came to be issued for the purpose of preparation of the duty list on the basis of the settlement, award and the decision of this Court. A further circular came to be issued on 30th November, 1996 to the effect that it was not the function of the Union to grant leave to the workers.

(3.) The respondents herein, thereafter, approached the Industrial Tribunal by filing a complaint under Sec. 33-A of the I. D. Act contending that there was breach of the provisions of Sec. 33-A of the I. D. Act in view of the pendency of industrial dispute in Reference No. (I.T.) 433 of 1992. The respondents submitted an application for ex-parte order and the Industrial Tribunal passed ex-parte interim order in terms of para 7(B) of the complaint under Sec. 33-A. The effect of the ex-parte (ad interim) order is that the duty list for the drivers and conductors of the A.M.T.S. would be prepared by the Union and that the Management is obliged to grant the leave as of right as per the recommendations of the Union according to their quota. The petitioner, therefore, has inter alia, contended that the impugned ex-parte (ad-interim) order is illegal and without jurisdiction and therefore, it should be quashed.