APOLLO TYRES LIMITED Vs. COMMISSION OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned advocate Kiran C. Raval for the petitioner.

(2.) LOOKING to the prayer made by the petitioner in para 20- (i) of the petition, the petitioner is praying to quash and set aside the impugned order of Reference dated June 22, 2007 at annexure E and direct the Industrial tribunal, Vadodara not to continue adjudication of the Reference being Ref. (IT)No. 84/2007 pursuant to impugned order at annexure E. Petitioner is also praying to stay further adjudication proceedings of said; reference pending before the Industrial tribunal at Vadodara pending hearing and final disposal of this petition.

(3.) LEARNED advocate Raval has raised various contentions before this Court while challenging the aforesaid order of reference. He submitted that this being an individual dispute converted to an industrial dispute, therefore, order of reference is bad. He also submitted that the union which is not representing substantial number of workmen has raised a dispute only in respect of employees those who are placed under suspension by the petitioner company. He also submitted that recently, there is settlement wherein the union is not a party which has raised industrial dispute, except that, all the workmen have accepted the settlement in toto. He also submitted that this dispute has been characterized as an industrial dispute only with a view to get advantage of pendency of an industrial dispute, impliedly to get protection of section 33 of the ID Act, 1947. He also submitted that in other matter wherein union is a party, preliminary contention has been raised by the petitioner challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the reference which issue is still not decided and is pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Baroda. Learned advocate Raval is having impression that the tribunal will not decide it because the Tribunal will rely upon the statement of the other side advocate that he will not proceed with the matter and that he will take adjournment and adjournment till he wants and, therefore, he submitted that the order of reference is bad and illegal. Except these contentions, no other contention was raised by the learned advocate kc Raval before this Court and no decision was cited by him before this Court in support of the contentions recorded hereinabove.