MANAGER, SPINNING UNIT, GANGAPUR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions raise a common question of law having been filed by the common petitioner, although founded on different set of facts and, therefore, are being decided by this common judgment. In all the writ petitions, common orders passed by the Industrial-cum-Labour Court, Bhilwara (in short 'the Labour Court') have been challenged. For the purpose of convenience, however, facts of first of the above writ petitions namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 486/2006 are being referred to in the judgment.

(2.) The petitioner is a registered Co-operative Society under the provisions of Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (in short the Act of 1965). Prior to formation of SPINFED in the State of Rajasthan, there were four Co- operative Spinning Mills formed by the State Government which were registered under the Act of 1965. They were known as Gangapur Spinning Mills, Gulabpura Spinning Mills, Hanumangarh Spinning Mills and Gulabpura Cotton Ginning Pressing Co-operative Society Ltd., Gulabpura. The Registrar of the Co- operative Societies in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Section 17 of the Act of 1965 read with Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Rules, 1966 (in short 'the Rules of 1966') amalgamated all the aforesaid four Cooperative Societies into one entity now known as Rajasthan State Cooperative Spinning and Ginning Mills Federation Ltd., namely, the petitioner herein. This amalgamation was intended to improve financial condition of the societies. According to the petitioner-federation, nearly 4500 employees are engaged in its four units and in order to enable them to come out of the financial crisis and to avoid winding up and closure thereof, the petitioner-federation has taken loans amounting to crores of rupees from State Government and also from the other financial institutions. This was aimed at reviving the units. When this did not help, the State Government in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 3 of the Rajasthan Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1961 (in short the Act of 1961) declared the petitioner-federation as a relief undertaking by notification dated 19-10-2001 and thereby exempted it from the purview of the laws like (i) Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946, (ii) Industrial Disputes (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1958 and (iii) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This notification was initially issued for a period of one year but this period has been further extended by subsequent notifications each time for one year issued respectively on 16-10-2002, 18-9-2003, 5-10-2004 and 27-10-2005. The petitioner-federation therefore continues to be a relief undertaking even to this date.

(3.) While in seventeen cases in which impugned order has been passed the appropriate Government made reference of the industrial dispute to the learned Labour Court, Bhilwara on the question of validity of the respondent-workmen and further if their termination order was held illegal, what relief could be granted to him. In the remaining two however applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act of 1947) were filed by the workmen. During the pendency of the proceedings in all these cases before the learned Labour Court, the petitioner-federation was declared a relief undertaking. It thereupon moved an application before the learned labour Court for staying the proceedings in the aforesaid cases on the ground that it was by virtue of Section 3 of the Act of 1961 exempted from the application of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act of 1947). The learned labour Court initially vide its order dated 26-11-2000 stayed the proceedings and, thereafter, further extended this order of stay by order dated 13-10-2003. Lastly, when the Government vide its notification dated 27-1-1995 again extended the term for the petitioner-federation as a relief undertaking by one more year for the period from 12-10-2005 to 11-10-2006, the petitioner again requested the learned labour Court for continuing the stay upto 11-10-2006. Such a request was made in all 19 cases including those out of which aforesaid 12 writ petitions arise. The learned labour Court however after hearing the arguments of the parties and consideration of law on the subject vide a common order dated 23-11-2005 rejected the application for extension of stay in all these cases holding that the proceedings before the labour Court under the Act of 1947 cannot be stayed for an indefinite period. Aggrieved by this common order passed by the learned labour Court, the petitioner-federation has preferred these writ petitions.