Back
Karnataka High Court
Judges : P.Vishwanatha Shetty,H.G.Ramesh
MANAGMENT OF S.K.F.BEARINGS INDIA LTD. - Appellant
Versus
S.M.RAVI KUMAR - Respondent
Write Appeal 7775 Of 2001
Decided On : 06/27/2005
Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 -Powers of conciliation officer -Rule 10 -Powers of conciliation officer -Power to direct parties. See, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -Section 12.
Labour & Services -Termination -Termination -Termination of industrial workman -Sustainability. See, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -Section 33(2).
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -Commencement of conciliation proceedings -Section 12 -Commencement of conciliation proceedings -How to be determined. [P. Vishwanatha Shetty and H. G. Ramesh, JJ]: While determining the question whether conciliation proceedings have commenced, or not, the Court has to look into the substance of the notice and not be Guided by any minor error that may creep into the contents of the notice issued to the parties for the purpose of conciliation proceedings. The Court cannot ignore the fact that by placing technical interpretation, the notice issued initiating conciliation proceedings is not treated as such a notice, the consequences of such interpretation would be very serious so far as the workmen are concerned, and it would have the effect of frustrating the very mandate contained in Section 33 of the Act.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -Conciliation proceedings -Section 2(e) -Conciliation proceedings -Means any proceedings held by a conciliation officer or the Board under the Act.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -Discretion of conciliation officer - Disputes relating to public utility services -Section 22 -Discretion of conciliation officer -Notice prohibiting strike and lock-out issued -Now, conciliation officer has no discretion and he is bound to hold conciliation proceedings. [P. Vishwanatha Shetty and H. G. Ramesh, JJ]: In respect of industries which are not in the nature of public utility services, a conciliation officer is empowered, if he is satisfied that an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, to hold conciliation proceedings. No doubt, in this a discretion is conferred on the conciliation officer to hold or not to hold conciliation proceedings. However, so far as disputes relating to public utility services are concerned and a notice prohibiting a strike and lock-out in terms of Section 22 of the Act has been issued, the conciliation officer is bound to hold the conciliation proceedings. In this there is no discretion left to the conciliation officer and he is required to hold the conciliation proceedings immediately after the issue of notice under Section 22 of the Act. However, it is necessary to point out that the discretion given to the conciliation officers to hold conciliation proceedings in respect of industries which are not public utility services cannot be exercised arbitrarily. He is required to exercise the discretion fairly and reasonably and keeping in mind the object of the power conferred on him. From the scheme of the Act, it is clear that conciliation officers are appointed with a view to mediate and bring about settlement and create a congenial atmosphere for the purpose of industries peace. Therefore, once the conciliation officer is satisfied that there is an existing industrial dispute or the industrial dispute is apprehended he has an imperative duty to initiate conciliation proceedings to maintain industrial peace and harmony in the industries.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -Duties of conciliation officer -Section 12(2) -Duties of conciliation officer -Stated. [P. Vishwanatha Shetty and H. G. Ramesh, JJ]: The conciliation officer should for the purpose of bringing about a settlement of the dispute, without delay investigate the dispute and all matters affecting the merits and all light of settlement and he should do all such things as he thinks fit for the purpose of inducing the parties to come to a fair and amicable settlement of the dispute. Under these circumstances, when an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, a conciliation officer cannot be a silent spectator to such disputes on the ground he has discretion not to initiate conciliation proceedings in respect of industries other than public utility services.
Cases Referred: 1999 II LLJ 600; 1961 I LLJ 162; 2002-LLJ 834; ILR 1986 Kar 3474; 1971 II LLJ 196.
( 1 ) THE appellant in this appeal is the management of S. K. F. Bearings India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Managment' ). The 1st respondent was the workman in the establishment of the management.
( 2 ) IN this appeal, the management has called in question the correctness of the order dated 7th november 2001 made in writ petition No. 36114 of 2001 by the Learned Single Judge of this court. In the impugned order, the learned Single Judge quashed the endorsement dated 19th december 2000, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-A, issued by the 3rd respondent, wherein the 3rd respondent informed the workman that the request to lodge a complaint against the management for violation of Section 33a of the Industrial Disputes Act (herein after referred to as 'the Act') has been rejected on the ground that on 19th July 1999 when the workman came to be terminated from service, there was no conciliation proceedings pending on that date. The Learned Judge in the impugned order further directed the 3rd respondent to reconsider the prayer of the workman in the light of the observation made by him in the course of the order impugned and also the documents-Annexures-B, C and D produced in the writ petition.
( 3 ) THE facts in brief:
The workman filed the petition dated 26th November 1998 before the conciliation officer, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-B to this appeal inter alia contending that there were 35 apprentices who have been working in the establishment of the Management for more than two years and they were recruited against the vacancies that had occurred on the cessation of service of the regular workmen and as such their services were required to be regularised and therefore, the conciliation officer should intervene in the matter and resolve the issue by stopping any such unilateral action of the management by arranging conciliation between the union and the management within 30th November 1998. Pursuant to the said petition/representation given by the President of the workmen's union, the conciliation officer issued a notice dated 27th november 1998 to the management informing the management that a joint-meeting for conciliation is proposed to be held between the management and workmen on 4th December 1998 at 3. 00 p. m. and for the said purpose the management and the union of the workmen should be present without fail along with the necessary documents and registers and in the meanwhile both the parties should maintain status quo and not to indulge in any untoward incidents as conciliation proceedings were on. Pursuant to the said notice, the parties appeared before the conciliation officer on 4th January 1999 and the proceedings were adjourned to 14th January 1999 on the ground that nobody was present on behalf of the management though the representative of the union was present. On 14th January 1999, again the proceedings were adjourned on the ground that nobody was present on behalf of the management though the representative of the union was present. The proceedings were again taken up by the conciliation officer on 25* January 1999. Even on the said date, though the representative of the Union was present, in view of the request made by the management by their letter dated 22nd January 1999, the proceedings were adjourned to 8th February 1999. On 8th February 1999 though both the parties were present, the proceedings were adjourned without giving a specific date. However, again on 3 lst March 1999 though the representatives of the workmen's union were present, since none were present on behalf of the management, the proceedings were adjourned without giving a date. However, the matter was again called on 12th April 1999. Even on the said date though the representative of the workmen's union was present, since none were present on behalf of the management, the proceedings were adjourned. On 7th August 1999, after some discussion, the matter was adjourned informing
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
