The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of providing reasons in decision-making and the need to consider additional issues alongside those already settled by the presiding officer.

Sunita Gupta, J.

1. The short question involved in the present Civil Writ Petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is whether the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi was justified in not framing the issues on the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner in ID No.34/ 2012.

2. The factual matrix of the case as disclosed in the writ petition are that Indian Airlines Ltd.-Airport Service Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as IAL-ASL) was incorporated under the Companies Act. It was wholly own subsidiary of Indian Airlines Ltd. Respondent Nos. 1 to 17 were recruited by IAL-ASL on fixed term contract basis. These sub-assistants were deputed to Airline Allied Services Ltd. which was another wholly own subsidiary of Indian Airlines Ltd. A meeting was held between the Sub-Assistants and the management of erstwhile Indian Airlines Ltd. when certain local issues (not involving policy of IAL-ASL) were discussed and resolved. Issues involving policy, such as increase in remuneration, grant of additional benefits etc. were forwarded to the office of Chief Operating Officer, IAL-ASL for consideration. Sub-Assistants threatened the management to go on march near the departure area at IGI Airport. An office order was issued that no leave application was to be entertained from the security staff. However, some Sub-Assistants including the respondent herein were spotted wearing black badges on the frontline areas on direct passenger interaction. Accordingly, the management issued instructions and also issued letter to Sub-Assistants to refrain from wearing black badges. They were also advised that their demands are pending consideration. However, Sub-Assistants walked out of their work places instigating others to do the same. Accordingly, the services of 22 Sub-Assistants including respondent No.1 to 10 and 17 were terminated. The Conciliation Officer directed them to call of the strike. However, despite the said direction, the Sub-Assistants continued with their illegal strike in violation of Section 22 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. An order was issued by the Management to twenty (20) Sub-Assistants including respondent Nos. 11 to 16 to the effect that they have voluntarily abandoned their respective duty and accordingly their name stands deleted with the immediate effect. Conciliation proceedings ended in failure. Board of IAL-ASL decided to wind up the IAL-ASL due to administrative and financial reasons. A writ petition was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 17 challenging their termination and deletion of their names. However, the same was withdrawn with liberty to approach the Tribunal under Industrial Disputes Act. Thereafter, respondent Nos. 1 to 17 raised a direct industrial dispute under Section 2A(2) of ID Act. Notice was issued by CGIT-cum-Labour Court-I to the petitioner. The petitioner filed its written statement raising various preliminary objections, inter alia, on the ground that the claim filed by the respondents is liable to be dismissed as the dispute is not maintainable as the workmen had approached the Tribunal without approaching the Conciliation Officer which is a pre-condition of Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The employees had raised an industrial dispute vide their letter dated 15th May, 2009 before the RLC(C), New Delhi regarding their demands about additional benefits and remuneration. Conciliation proceedings were held but as the matter could not be resolved, the Chief Labour Commissioner (C) held conciliation proceedings on various dates. During the conciliation proceedings, the Employees Union also demanded that all the workmen whose services were terminated should be taken back. The said conciliation failed and the failure report was recorded on 19th October, 2009 and sent to Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi. The conciliation had started before the a