MAHARASHTRA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition arises under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against an Award of the Second Labour Court, Thane, dated 9th July, 1987 made in Reference (IDA) No. 167 of 1982 under the provisions of section 10 (1) (c) read with section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ).

(2.) THE petitioner is a registered trade union acting on behalf of 25 workmen of the second respondent Company, which was engaged in the business of manufacture of synthetic fibres at Thane. At the material time, the second respondent employed about 600 workmen in its factory. There were disputes between the parties, which culminated in dismissal of 25 workmen employed by the second respondent. The workmen were dismissed on different dates between 29th November, 1981 to 31st January, 1982. The petitioner demanded reinstatement of the 25 workmen dismissed from service, by sending demand letters during the period 2nd December, 1981 to 1st March, 1982. These demands for reinstatement for the dismissed workmen did not produce any result. Consequently, by a letter dated 15th March, 1982 addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, the Union called upon the first respondent-Appropriate Government to process the demand under the provisions of the Act, so that relief could be obtained by them. Conciliation proceedings took place and ended in failure. By an order of Reference dated 8th October, 1982, the Appropriate Government referred to the Labour Court the demand for reinstatement of the 25 concerned workmen. The details of the demand are described in the Schedule to the Order of Reference. Since a material controversy has arisen as to the exact nature of the dispute before the Labour Court, it would be worthwhile reproducing the material portion of the order of reference:-INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 no. DY. CL/thn/ajd/2k/w-113 (82 ).---Whereas the Government of Maharashtra in the Industries, Energy and Labour Department by its Notification No. IDA/1379 (ii)/lab-9, dated 20th April, 1979 and in supersession of Government Notification, Industries, Energy and Labour Department No. IDA/1379/12752/lab-2, dated 30th March 1976 has directed in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947) that the powers exercisable by it under sub-section (1) of section 10 and sub-section (5) of section 12 of the said Act shall in relation to industrial disputes relating to the matter specified in item 3 of the Second Schedule and the matter so far as it concerns retrenchment in item 10 of the Third Schedule to the said Act, provided the matter concerns retrenchment of 10 or less than 10 workmen, be exercisable also by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Thane: and whereas, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Thane has considered the report submitted by the Concilitation Officer, under sub-section (4) of section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947) in respect of the dispute between M/s. Wellman (Hindustan) Pvt. Ltd. Kolshet Road, Thane, and the workmen employed under them/it, over the demand mentioned in the Schedule appended hereto: and whereas the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Thane after considering the aforesaid report is satisfied that there is a case for reference of the dispute to a Labour Court; now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 10 read with sub-section (5) of section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as delegated in the manner aforesaid, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Thane is pleased to refer the said dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court at Thane consisting of Shri S. V. R. Naidu constituted under Government Notification, Industries Energy and Labour Department No. IDA-1181/6196/lab-9, dated 12-4-1982. (The Schedule to the order of Reference is not reproduced.)

(3.) BEFORE the Labour Court, the second respondent employer raised two preliminary objections as to tenability of reference and requested the Labour Court to try the preliminary objections in the first instance. By an order dated 19th March, 1987, the Labour Court overruled the prayer made by the petitioner that all issues arising in the Reference be tried together. The Labour Court also directed the petitioner to cross-examine the witness of the employer and thereafter to examine any witness on their behalf for rebuttal on the preliminary issue. The two preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the Reference have been reproduced by the Labour Court in paragraph 2 of its Award (page 94 of the petition ). While the employer examined one witness in support of the factual aspects of the preliminary objections, the petitioner did not lead any oral evidence. The Labour Court heard the parties and, accepting both the preliminary objections, came to the conclusion by the impugned order that the Reference was bad in law and deserved to be rejected on the technical grounds urged by the Second Respondent. Hence, this writ petition.