JEROO DASTUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 13 petitioners in this petition claim that they joined standard Chartered Bank, respondent No. 2, at various points of time and served for number of years. They were appointed in the capacity of Clerks and Typists. They are workmen within the meaning of section 2 (s)of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The petitioners had various claims against the management of respondent No. 2 and their claims were turned down. The allegation of the petitioners is that respondent No. 2 had been intimidating its employees to resign failing which it was threatened that they would not be paid their lawful dues. Under this threat held out by respondent No. 2, they were made to sign letters that bartered away the rights vested in them under the law. In order to fight for the legal rights, the petitioners submitted an application before the Regional labour Commissioner (Central), under the provisions of the Act for conciliation. Pursuant thereto, respondent No. 1 took cognizance and came to realise that there exists an industrial dispute between the parties. Notice on the demand of the petitioners was issued to respondent No. 2 on 27th October, 2003. The respondents represented their case before the concerned authorities. According to the petitioners, their services had been terminated wrongfully and they showed the said authorities that they had not voluntarily resigned, as claimed by respondent No. 2. The matter remained pending before respondent no. 1. Vide an order dated 6th January, 2004, the petitioners were informed that no dispute existed between the parties as they had resigned voluntarily of their own accord and as such no reference could be made. This finding recorded by respondent No. 1 was contrary to its earlier view which had been taken on 27th October, 2003, when after looking into the matter the authorities had issued notice to respondent No. 2 patently demonstrating that the dispute existed between the parties.

(2.) THE order dated 6th January, 2004, by which the reference of industrial dispute on the basis of letter of demand dated 29th september, 2003 was denied to the petitioners primarily on the ground that they had resigned from the services and had accepted full and final settlement of dues from respondent No. 2. The said order reads as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_36_BCR1_2008Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) THE contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that they had submitted a demand to the Regional Labour Commissioner, with a copy to respondent No. 2 which was duly received by them, wherein they had raised various controversies including the fact that the letters were got signed from the petitioners as a result of undue influence and coercion etc. and that they were entitled to reinstatement with full back wages as per the rights vested in them according to law. It was a detailed demand notice and in the light of that, the Appropriate Government had no jurisdiction to enter upon the merits of the dispute and pass the impugned order. Such exercise of jurisdiction by the authorities was beyond the scope and limitation of section 10 of the Act.