DHENKANAL MEHENTAR SANGHA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Dhenkanal Mehentar sangha, being represented by its General secretary, has filed this writ petition as the opposite Parties, particularly Opposite Party no. 1 did not refer three of the demands raised by it to the proper adjudicating authority under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "i. D. Act" ).

(2.) AS per the case of petitioner, it submitted a charter of demands before the management of Dhenkanal Municipality on august 16, 1993 with copy to District Labour officer, Dhenkanal. In the charter, there were 18 demands. Pursuant to such demands, the matter was enquired into and on being satisfied about the existence of industrial disputes, it was admitted by the Conciliation Officer, Opposite party No. 2, on December 10, 1993. On conciliation, all but five demands could not be settled and accordingly Opposite Party No. 2 submitted his failure report vide Annexure-1 to opposite Party No. 1 on September 26, 1994, out of which, Opposite Party No. 1 found only two demands to be fit for reference under section 10 of the I. D. Act and accordingly referred the same for adjudication on June 21, 1995 vide Annexure-2. The petitioner, claimed that the following three more demands ought to have been referred to the proper authority for adjudication:

(3.) OPPOSITE Party Nos. 1 and 2 in their joint counter affidavit contended that after failure of the conciliation, a report to that effect was submitted to the Government, on receipt of which, the matter was examined and the government referred two demands which formed industrial dispute in terms of Section 2 (k) (wrongly typed as 2-s) of the I. D. Act. All other demands being beyond the purview of section 2 (k) of the I. D. Act were not referred. According to the Management of Dhenkanal municipality, Dhenkanal, Sweepers working at the relevant point of time were quite sufficient in number to cater to the needs of the municipality, as such, additional posting was not felt warranted. It was also submitted by the management that while the sanctioned strength of the sweepers was 65, in fact 76 sweepers were working by that time; moreover, no allegation was ever received from the petitioner relating to over pressure to its members. So these Opposite Parties prayed to dismiss the writ petition.