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.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

1. Leave to delete Respondent No. 4, being a formal party. Deletion permitted. Deletion be carried out forthwith.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. The Petitioner Union raised its demands on the Respondent No. 3 Employer. Copies of the demands were served upon the Respondent No. 2, Conciliation Officer. After receiving the demands, Respondent No. 2 did not indulge into the matter and did not initiate any Conciliation proceedings on the ground that the Application was not in proper form. A meeting termed as ‘Personal Management Advisory Services’ (‘PMAS’), was arranged. When called upon, the learned Advocate for the Assistant Commissioner Labour/Conciliation Officer is unable to point out, either from the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 as regards existence of any provision to hold a PMAS meeting. Instead of admitting the dispute in conciliation and attempting to resolve the dispute, Respondent No. 2 shunted out the Petitioner on the spacious plea that the Application was not in proper format.

3. We record our serious displeasure for the manner in which Respondent No. 2 has dealt with the dispute. Fortunately, the dispute between the Recognized Union and the Management, has still not escalated into a full blown confrontation.

4. The learned Advocate for the Management submits that the Management never called upon the Conciliation Officer to shunt out the Petitioners. It is the decision of the Conciliation Officer dated 10.9.2025, which is a cursory remark that, since there was no settlement between the parties, the file is closed and they are at liberty to approach the Court.

5. The procedure as to how an Industrial Dispute is to be dealt with, has been exhaustively considered by this Court (Coram : Ravindra V. Ghuge & Sanjay A. Deshmukh, JJ), in M/s. Premium Transmission Pvt. Limited v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Others, Writ Petition No. 7158 of 2020) [Manu/MH/1324/2023]. This Court has adverted to Rules 11 to 13, 17 and 17A of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957, (the word “Bombay” is now replaced by the word “Maharashtra”).

6. The duty of the Conciliation Officer requires that whenever he receives any information about an existing or apprehended industrial dispute, he shall give a formal intimation to the parties concerned declaring his intention to commence Conciliation proceedings with effect from such date, as may be specified therein. The Conciliation Officer may hold a meeting of the representatives of both the parties, jointly or with each parties, separately. The Conciliation Officer has to conduct the proceedings expeditiously.

7. In Management of Menon Pistons Private Limited vs. The Labour Court-II, Madras , 2000(3) L.W. 71, it was concluded that the Conciliation Officer does not have the power to initiate pre-conciliation meeting. The Conciliation Officer has to give a formal intimation of his intention to commence the Conciliation proceedings.

8. In Gujarat Ambuja Cement Private Limited vs. U.B. Gadhe , 2006 (1) GLR 269 , while referring to Rule 12, it was held that the Conciliation Officer shall conduct the proceedings expeditiously and conclude the proceedings within 14 days. The Conciliation Officer has the power to give a formal intimation in writing to the parties concerned declaring his intention to commence Conciliation Proceedings with effect from a particular date. The only requirement is that the Management should receive a charter of demands from the workers prior to the demand being admitted in conciliation.

9. In Management of Menon Pistons Private Limited (supra)