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
| 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:-
(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:-
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
Gujarat Ambuja Cement Pvt. Ltd. V/s. U.B. Gadhe Reported in 2006 I GLR 269(Guj HC)
Mico Employees Association V/s. State of Karnataka Reported in 1987 (I) LLJ 300 (Kar HC)
Vividh Kamgar Sabha Vs. Kalyani Steel
Cipla Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and Ors. (2001) 3 SCC 101
Management of Menon Pistons Private Limited vs. The Labour Court-II, Madras
Shambu Nath Goyal vs. The Bank of Baroda
Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Limited vs. Industrial Tribunal of Gujarat and others
Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. vs. Shri Ram Gopal Sharma and others
Associated Cement Staff Union, Mumbai vs. State of Maharashtra and others
The Conciliation Officer is obligated to commence conciliation proceedings upon receiving a valid demand, ensuring adherence to the established procedures outlined in the Industrial Disputes Act.
The court clarified that direct prior demands are not mandatory for initiating conciliation and that the contractor-worker relationship can be adjudicated in the context of unfair labor practices and....
Workers can claim back wages if dismissed without statutory approval under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, as such dismissals are deemed void.
The nature of proceedings before a Conciliation Officer and the applicability of Order XXIII Rule 4 CPC in cases where a claim is filed before the Conciliation Officer.
Conciliation Officers do not adjudicate disputes, making withdrawal of claims before them not binding; failing to disclose such withdrawal does not constitute material concealment justifying dismissa....
The court upheld the principle of collective bargaining, ruling that workmen represented by a union cannot independently file claims against their union, ensuring industrial peace and effective repre....
Joint requests for conciliation can occur post-failure reports, and the Government must critically assess any settlement's validity, especially regarding claims of coercion.
The court upheld the validity of a reference order made under the Industrial Disputes Act, emphasizing the administrative nature of such references and allowing the Tribunal to adjudicate claims from....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.