S.ATRALARASUN Vs. LABOUR OFFICER (CONCILIATION), PUDUCHERRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioners seek for a direction restraining the third respondent Management from entering or counter signing any 12(3) settlement with the respondents 2 and 3 with regard to the industrial dispute of petitioners' non-employment which is a subject matter of an industrial dispute under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act dated 08.05.2012 between the petitioners and second respondent and consequently, for a direction to the first respondent to give a failure report on the individual dispute dated 08.05.2012 raised by the petitioners under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, within a stipulated time. When the matter came up on 11.06.2012, notice of motion was ordered. Pending the notice of motion, an interim injunction was granted for a period of four weeks. The said interim order came to be extended from time to time. Aggrieved by the interim order, the second respondent has filed a vacate injunction application in M.P. No. 2/2012, together with a counter affidavit dated 27.09.2012. The third respondent Trade Union has also filed a counter affidavit dated 12.11.2012.

(2.) In the petition sent by the petitioners on 08.05.2012 to the first respondent, Conciliation Officer, Puducherry, the petitioners claim that they have been denied employment and the denial of employment was illegal and they are entitled for all benefits including backwages and service continuity. It is the case of the petitioners that since they have declined promotion and thereafter, entitled to be continuity in service, they have been struggling without any payment. In the identical statement made before the Conciliation Officer, the petitioners also informed that they are no longer the members of the third respondent Union and they have resigned from the Union with effect from 05.05.2012 and if any settlement was reached, the said settlement is not binding on them. The petitioners also caused legal notice to the respondents through their counsel dated 29.05.2012 and only thereafter, the writ petition came to be filed.

(3.) However, it is fairly admitted that subsequent to the filing of petitions before the Labour Officer, the petitioners taken advantage of Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, wherein it is stated that the petitioners in respect of their non-employment can go before the Labour Court after 45 days from the date they move the Conciliation Officer. In such cases, the Labour Court has power to adjudicate the said dispute as if it was a dispute referred to the Labour Court by the appropriate Government. The said 2A(3) provision has been introduced notwithstanding the provision under Section 10(1) wherein appropriate Government will have to make order of reference even in case of individual non-employment. Taking advantage of the default provision, the petitioners filed claim statements before the Labour Court and their industrial disputes have been taken on file in I.D. Nos. 26, 27 and 28/2012. Therefore, the question of this Court directing the Conciliation Officer to issue failure report has become infructuous.