SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Bom) 353

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.
M/s. Premium Transmission Pvt. Limited, (through its Authorized Signatory) - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through its Dy. Labour Commissioner and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No.7158 Of 2020
Decided On : 31-03-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. B.R. Kawre, i/by Mr. Nitin Dhoble.
For the Respondents: Mr. V.M. Kagne, Mr. T.K. Prabhakaran, Adv. i/by Mr. A.S. Kulkarni.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2(d), 2(e), 2(k), 10(1), 11, 12, 20, 21, 38; Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 - Rule 11 - Writ petition challenging conciliation proceedings on grounds of improper initiation, non-admittance of demands, and reference made to Industrial Tribunal. The Conciliation Officer is empowered to initiate conciliation proceedings based on existing or apprehended industrial disputes without a prior demand being mandatory, as noted in multiple judicial precedents. The management's contention of not having an industrial dispute prior to reference was rejected. The process of initiating conciliation was deemed lawful and necessary to protect worker rights, with emphasis placed on the evolving context of labour relations and employer-employee dynamics. The underlying concerns of potential retaliatory actions by management prompted the union's direct approach to the conciliation officer. (Paras 10, 12, 27, 41, 53)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner management contested the admission of conciliation proceedings initiated by the Conciliation Officer without prior demand notice from the union. The union represented contract labourers alleging exploitation and breaches of statutory protections during the pending discussion. Due to a lack of progress in conciliatory efforts, the Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report to the appropriate government, leading to the reference for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld that conciliation could commence even in the absence of formal demands under current industrial context; the Conciliation Officer's actions were proper. The court also stated that turning back to preliminary stages was unnecessary and would prolong resolution.

Issues: Whether conciliation could properly commence without direct demands being made to the employer. Whether a valid industrial dispute existed prior to government reference and whether the Conciliation Officer acted within his jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: It is permissible for a union or workers to approach the conciliation officer directly without prior demands to ensure protection from retaliatory action, emphasizing the duty of the Conciliation Officer to facilitate dispute resolution under the ID Act. This approach aligns with modern labour relations where timely interventions are critical for worker rights.

Result: Writ petition dismissed, with directives for timely proceedings in the Industrial Tribunal.

Table of Content
1. court's observations on conciliation officer's duties (Para 1 , 3 , 13)
2. arguments against management's claims on dispute initiation (Para 2 , 19)
3. conciliation proceedings initiation and purpose (Para 4)
4. legal principles on industrial disputes and conciliation (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 23)
5. final conclusions and decisions made by the court (Para 53 , 54 , 56)

JUDGMENT :

(Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.) :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioner Management has put forth prayer clauses (b), (c) and (d) as under:-

    “(b) Issue writ or writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or directions or writ of mandamus in like nature and quash and set aside Conciliation admission order dated 11- 06-2019 and further entire Conciliation proceedings held by the Respondent No. 2 along with its failure report dated 22-01-2020.

    (c) Be quash and set aside the Order dated 28-01-2020 and further notification of Reference dated 28-01-2020 issued by the Respondent No. 1 referring the dispute before Industrial Tribunal, Aurangabad for adjudication and further registration of Reference IT/01/2020 by the Industrial Tribunal.

    (d) Pending hearing and final disposal of Petition Order and Notification dated 28-01-2020 issued by respondent No. 1 and pending reference No. IT/01/2020 before Industrial Tribunal may be stayed.”

3. After having heard the extensive submissions of the learned advocates for the Management and the Union and the learned AGP on behalf of the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, the learned advocates expressed a desire of tendering their written notes of submissions.

4. The written notes of submissions of the petitioner Management dated 01.02.2023, are reproduced verbatim as under:-

    “01. The Petitioner is an incorporated Company, registered under the Companies Act as well as other applicable statutes. It has a factory situated at Plot No. B-36, Five Star Shendra, MIDC., Aurangabad. The Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad is acts on behalf of Govt. of Maharashtra and appropriate Govt. The Res. 2 is Conciliation Officer appointed under the Industrial Dispute Act 1947.

    02. The Petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing of wide range power transmission engineering products, it includes Worm Gearbox, Helical & Bevel Helical Gearbox, Vertical Coal Pulverizing Mill Gearbox, Planetary Gearbox, Helical & Worm Geared Motors, Bevel Helical Cooling Tower Gearbox, Fluid Coupling both Constant and Variable Speed, Extruder Gearbox, Elevator Machines etc. It’s major supply is to industrial Engineering Customers.

    03. That, to achieve ordered products, the Petitioner using modern technology by installing highly technological and latest advanced Computer numerical control machines. To operate such CNC machines, the petitioner appointed about 118 highly trained manpower. The Factory Manager is appointing and disciplinary authority to the employees employed by the Company.

    04. That other than regular production activities or incidental work registered Labour Contractor under Contract Labour (R & A) Act 1970 are appointed. The Labour Contractors are independent establishments within the meaning of various Labour statutes like EPF & MP Act, ESIC, Professional tax, GST and other statutes. The Res. 2 being registered authority and in that capacity issued Registration Certificate and Licenses in the name of Petitioner and contractors to engage Contract Labourers. It means the Petitioner and Contractor are permitted to appoint labours on the terms as envisaged in the license.

    05. Om Sai Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Aurangabad Multi Services, independent labour Contractors were appointed to supply Labours as per agreement. The work allotted to Contractors or performed by its labou

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          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

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top