PIX TRANSMISSION LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner employer has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order of Reference dated 21.1.2010 passed by respondent no. 2 and referring the controversy to the Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur. The said Reference as reproduced in Schedule appended to the order dated 21.1.2010 is reproduced below :

(2.) The challenge raised is basically on the ground that3 entire controversy as presented to respondent no. 2 has not been placed for consideration before the Industrial Court and petitioner/employer is, therefore, precluded from pointing out that the demand of minimum wages as raised is itself erroneous and misconceived. It is further urged that as wages are being paid at a rate which is more than the rate of minimum wages as per settlement dated 14.8.2006 and that settlement was for a period of three years and contained a clause which prohibited respondent no. 3 Union from raising any financial demand, the Authority ought to have seen that there was no industrial dispute or dispute as defined in Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. This Court issued notice in writ petition on 28 th October 2010 and thereafter the matter came to be admitted on 9 th June 2011. Further proceedings in Reference registered as Reference (IDA) No. 1 of 2010 were stayed, but then petitioner/employer was directed to file appropriate Written Statement before the Authority raising all defences. Accordingly, Written Statement has been filed by the petitioner/employer. In this background, we have Mr V. R. Thakur with Mr H. V. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr M. V. Mohokar, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and Ms A. R. Taiwade, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents no. 1, 2 and 4.

(3.) After inviting attention to undisputed facts, Mr V. R. Thakur has pointed out that the minimum wages payable under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 were revised on 16.4.2007 and thereafter respondent no. 3 made a demand of basic wage and DA accordingly. The communication was immediately replied to pointing out that the workmen were receiving more than minimum rate of wages and hence, there was no question of rate specified in 16.4.2007 Notification to be made applicable. After this, respondent no. 3 invoked Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and raised very same demand. It was replied to on 6.2.2008. On 5.3.2008 respondent no. 3 submitted justification in detail of demand made by it mentioning the point in dispute. The petitioner by way of abundant precaution filed written notes of argument before that Authority on 1.10.2009 giving entire history pointing out that there is no & can be no5 "dispute" and how demand was erroneous. The Conciliation Officer admitted the matter to conciliation on 6.10.2009 and thereafter the petitioner submitted a communication ad0pting their reply/defence already on record. On 16.12.2009 respondent no. 2 submitted a failure report to appropriate Government and then the reference as mentioned supra came to be made to last respondent Industrial Court.