MAHA GUJARAT LABOUR UNION Vs. STOVEC INDUSTRIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Bhatt, the learned advocate for the petitioner Union and Mr. Patel for the respondent Co. and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No. 3 and 4. The facts of the present petition, in short, are as under:

(2.) I have heard the learned advocates for the parties. Mr. Bhatt, the learned advocate for the petitioner union has submitted that there was genuine dispute between the employer and the employee. According to Mr. Bhatt, the Conciliation Officer has no power to decide or to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. He has to consider only prima facie case and not to adjudicate the issue which was raised by the union. He has further submitted that the law on that point has been settled by the decision of the apex court reported in AIR 1989 SC 1565. As regards delay, Mr. Bhatt has cited the decision of the apex court reported in 1999 (2) Scale 508 and the decision of Mahavirsinh reported in 1999 (2) CLR pg. 7. In both the cases, the Hon'ble apex court has decided that no period of limitation is prescribed for getting the reference made and it is not the function of the Court to prescribe the limitation where the legislature has, in its wisdom, thought it fit not to prescribe the period of limitation. It was further held that no reference to labour court could be thrown on the ground of delay alone and the Court can mould the relief by declining to grant some back wages. In case of Mahavirsinh, (supra), the apex court has held that merely because the dispute was belatedly raised, it does not mean that the dispute ceased to exist and the delay in raising the dispute is taken care by not awarding full back wages but only fifty percent for the entire period.

(3.) Mr. Patel, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent Co. has submitted that the demand is frivolous, belated and has also relied upon page 59 of the reply paragraph 2 and has further submitted that the conciliation officer has power to examine the matter in prima facie manner and the same has been done by the conciliation officer and has not decide any dispute between the parties. Mr. Patel has relied upon the decision of the apex court reported in AIR 1964 SC 1617, paragraph 6 on page 1621 and another decision reported in AIR 1976 page 1474 in respect of delay and has also relied upon the decision of this court reported in 1996 (2) GLH 149.