LOKMAT NEWSPAPERS PVT LTD Vs. ADDITIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order dated 3-4-2006 passed by Industrial Court/tribunal, Nagpur in Reference No. (IT) 1 of 2006 as also to the order dated 1-2-2006 issued by respondent No. 1 Additional labour Commissioner under section 12 (5) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referring the dispute raised by respondent No. 2 Trade Union to respondent No. 4 industrial Tribunal. The objection raised by present petitioner/employer about validity of reference made and seeking its return has been rejected by Industrial tribunal on 3-4-2006. The respondent No. 2 had filed application seeking interim relief of protection of status and service conditions of concerned employees before Industrial Tribunal and that also has been rejected by very same order. Accordingly respondent No. 2 trade union has filed Writ Petition 4073/2006 challenging said rejection. Both these petitions were listed together but then at the request of parties present writ petition has been taken up for consideration first and the other is kept pending. Considering the nature of controversy, petition has been heard finally at the stage of admission itself. Accordingly Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent.

(2.) The order of reference dated 1-2-2006 after mentioning the formal facts in schedule states the dispute referred as under : "schedule. Following 19 employees should be made permanent. " then the names of these 19 employees are mentioned. In the formal part there is absolutely nothing about the nature of dispute raised or the facts and circumstances in which the reference came to be made to Industrial Tribunal. After this reference Trade Union filed statement of claim in support thereof on 18th March, 2006 and on same day they also moved application for grant of interim relief to protect services and position of concerned employee members listed at serial number 2 to 8, i. e. total 7 employees. The employer filed reply opposing the statement of claim on 27th March, 2006. On the 29-3-2006 employer also moved application for return of reference and on 31-3-2006 they also submitted the written notes of argument in support of their stand. The industrial Tribunal has rejected their prayer for return of reference on 3rd April, 2006 which in fact is a common interim award/order passed below Exhibits 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14 by it. Exhibit 8 is filed by 7 employees with prayer to protect their service and status during pendency of reference before Industrial Tribunal. Exhibit 9 is submitted by one employee whose services were terminated and he claimed said termination during pendency of conciliation proceedings to be illegal and prayed for reinstatement by interim order. At Exhibit 10 and 11 two other employees have claimed similar relief. Employer filed application at exhibit 14 seeking return of reference to Conciliation Officer. In present writ petition we are concerned with grievance of employer in this Exhibit 14 and the order dated 3rd April, 2006 rejecting that grievance.

(3.) I have heard Advocate P. C. Marpakwar for petitioner-employer and advocate S. D. Thakur for Trade Union respondent No. 2. Learned AGP appeared for respondent No. 1.