ORISSA MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES FEDERATION Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENSIBILITY of the order passed by the Deputy Secretary to Government in the Department of Labour and Employment by Office Memorandum dated March 4, 1995 (Annexure-1) declining to refer the disputes alleged to have arisen between the Director, Municipal Administration, Orissa and All Executive Officers and Chairman of Municipalities and Notified Area Councils of the State and their workmen in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is called in question by the petitioner-Orissa Municipal Employees Federation in the present writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE factual scenario as depicted by the petitioner is as follows : The Federation raised charter of demand before the Conciliation Officer-Assistant Labour Commissioner for adjudication. The said authority entered into conciliation and upon conciliation submitted his failure report to the State Government. The State Government on consideration of the failure report submitted by the Conciliation Officer by order dated March 4, 1995 recorded that no industrial dispute existed between the parties in respect of 14 demands. As it appears there has been categorisation of demands and reasons have been ascribed itemwise for such non-reference. However, dispute with regard to revision of rate of pension paid to the workmen of the Municipalities and the N. A. Cs has been referred to the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, for adjudication. The grievance is with regard to the order passed by the State Government refusing to refer the rest of the disputes.

(3.) BY order dated August 23, 1995, notice was issued to the opposite parties indicating that the writ application was likely to be disposed of at the stage of admission itself. Notices were served on the opposite parties. On February 1, 1996, the Court took note of non-filing of the counter affidavit and directed for listing of the matter for final disposal after six weeks with a further stipulation that the counter affidavit should be filed within the said period. It was observed in the aforesaid order that in the event no counter affidavit was filed, matter should be placed for final disposal. The matter appeared on May 10, 1996 and on that day, it was directed to be posted 2 weeks after the summer vacation. The Court while adjourning the matter recorded thus :--