The existence of an industrial dispute at the time of Reference is essential, and delay in raising the dispute does not extinguish it.

JUDGMENT :

Nitin Jamdar, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service.

2. The Respondents worked at the Petitioner's manufacturing plant. Respondents services were terminated. The Respondents raised a demand that they were illegally terminated by the Petitioner, which culminated in an industrial Reference made by the appropriate Government under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour Court. The Petitioner has challenged the order of Reference on the ground that the claims of Respondents were belated and extinguished and no industrial dispute was in existence when the Reference was made.

3. The Petitioner had a manufacturing plant at Kodoli, Satara. The Petitioner closed its operations and retrenched/terminated the services of the Respondents—Workmen in June 2001. A notice was issued on 28 June 2001 by the Petitioner, addressed to all the workers, stating that there was insufficient work at the plant and that production would be closed for some days. The notice further said that the company would be closed from 11 July 2001 due to the lack of work. It was stated that workers would be given first preference whenever work would be available to the company. If no work was available, adequate compensation would be paid.

4. Some workers (other than the Respondents) challenged the Petitioner's action by filing complaints of unfair labour practices before the Industrial Court, Satara. The Industrial Court, by judgment dated 1 November 2002, allowed the complaints and held that the Petitioner had engaged in unfair labour practices under items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. Thereafter, these workers settled the dispute with the Petitioner.

5. In the year 2015, the Petitioner applied for No Objection to the Assistant Labour Commissioner for the transfer of the land and building of the plant to a third party. The Respondents—Workers raised a demand against the Petitioner on 29 May 2015 regarding their retrenchment/termination in June 2001. The Petitioner replied on 23 June 2015, contending that the Respondents were retrenched after following the due process of law and after such a delay no dispute existed.

6. Respondent No.3, the Additional Commissioner of Labour, admitted the demand in conciliation. The Conciliation Officer, on 30 August 2016, gave a failure report. Thereafter, on 18 November 2016, the Additional Commissioner of Labour, by exercising power under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court, Satara. References were then given individual numbers.

7. While the proceedings in the Labour Court under Reference were going on, the Petitioner approached this Court with these petitions with a prayer to quash and set aside the order of Reference made by Respondent No. 3 on 18 November 2016. Replies were filed by the Respondents in some of the Writ Petitions, which were adopted in other Writ Petitions. A rejoinder is filed by the Petitioner.

8. We have heard Mr. Kiran Bapat, the learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners, Mr. Kaustubh Gidh for Respondents-workers and the learned Additional/Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State.

9. The Petitioner’s contentions in short, are as follows. There is a delay in raising the dispute by the Respondents. When the Reference was made, an industrial dispute between the parties did not exist. If the industrial dispute does not exist, then the Reference cannot be made. The appropriate Government—Respondent No. 3 did not record its satisfaction regarding the existence of an industrial dispute, which is a condition precedent for the order of Reference. The dispute was raised after 14 years, and the Respondents acquiesced to the act of termination and had accepted their termination. Since there were delay and laches, the Reference could not have been made. It is not necessary for the State Government to make a ref