GUEST KEEN WILLIAMS LTD Vs. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application for stay, the appellant-petitioner-company, namely, Guest Keen Williams Ltd. has contended that pursuant to an agreement entered into between the company and the junior management staff of the said company, inter alia, to the effect that the said members of the junior management staff were included in the category of the officers and not in the category of workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, certain benefits had been conferred on the said members of the junior management staff during the pendency of a reference proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act before the Seventh Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal. A copy of the said agreement was made available before the learned Judge of the Tribunal and he was informed on behalf of the appellant-petitioner that in view of such agreement, there was no occasion for any industrial dispute in the said reference proceeding because the members of the junior management staff had accepted the position that they were members of the adminstrative staff and were not workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Judge, however, did not decide the said contention of the petitioner-company and kept the same open on the finding that the decision of the same was dependent upon certain evidences on fact. The learned Judge of the Industrial Tribunal, however, disposed of the said reference proceeding on the basis of the agreement entered between the parties.

(2.) Thereafter at the instance of the Junior Management Staff Association of the company a conciliation proceeding was started by the Conciliation Officer, namely, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, West Bengal. It appears that the appellant-petitioner company has made a submission before the said Conciliation Officer that such conciliation proceeding was no longer maintainable as the members of the junior management staff were not workmen and as such any dispute between them and the company could not be considered under the Industrial Disputes Act. As the Conciliation Officer has been issuing notices to the appellant-petitioner company calling upon the management to come for discussion in the said conciliation proceeding, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was moved before the Court, inter alia, contending therein that the said conciliation proceeding was illegal and the Conciliation Officer had no jurisdiction to proceed with the conciliation proceeding on the footing that the members of the Junior Management Staff were workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned trial judge, however, disposed of the said writ petition, inter alia, holding that the Conciliation Officer should not be restrained from proceeding with the said conciliation proceeding at this stage but the petitioner-company would be free to take objections against such conciliation proceeding and they would be at liberty to move against any decision which would be made by the Conciliation Officer in such conciliation proceeding. Being dissatisfied with such adjudication of the learned trial Judge, the instant appeal has been preferred and the aforesaid application for stay and/or injunction has also been made.

(3.) Sri Ginwala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-petitioner-company, has contended that in view of the fact that the agreement was entered into between the Junior Management Staff Association and the appellant-petitioner-company that the members of the said Junior Management Staff Association were not workmen within the Industrial Disputes Act and they would not be treated as such, and further in view of the fact that on such solemn agreement between the parties, the members of the said Junior Management Staff Association derived certain benefits from the company, it was no longer open to the members of the said Junior Management Staff of the company to approach the Conciliation Officer for conciliation of any dispute within the scope and ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act. Sri Ginwala has contended that the Conciliation Officer has been apprised of such agreement between the parties and the company has categorically pointed out that after accepting the position by the members of the said Junior Management Staff Association that they were the Management Staff of the Company and were not workmen, the Conciliation Officer cannot proceed on the footing that the said members are workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, and as such, there is occasion for the conciliation of the disputes raised by such workmen. He has contended that the members of the said Junior Management Staff Association are estopped from contending any further that they are still workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. Sri Ginwala has also contended that the said Conciliation Officer is under an obligation to take into consideration the fact of such agreement and to drop the said conciliation proceeding because he had no jurisdiction to proceed with such conciliation proceeding at the instance of the members of the Junior Management State Association. In support of his contention Sri Ginwala has referred to a decision made in the case of Workmen of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v Hindustan Lever Ltd. 1984 L.L.N.460. Reliance has been made to the observation appearing in para 25 of the said decision and it has been contended by Sri Ginwala that in view of the aforesaid agreement between the Junior Management Staff Association of the company and the company, the members of the Junior Management Staff were estopped from contending any further that they were workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act and at their instance, a conciliation proceeding could at all be initiated. Sri Ginwala had submitted that despite the relevant facts and circumstances of the said case being made known to the Conciliation Officer the Conciliation Officer has chosen not to drop the said proceeding and it appears that he is bent upon proceeding further with the said purported conciliation proceeding illegally and without jurisdiction, and as such the. said purported conciliation proceeding initiated without jurisdiction should be quashed by this Court and the interim order should be passed restraining the Conciliation Officer from proceeding any further with the conciliation proceeding.