IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of strict compliance with the time limit for filing applications seeking to declare workmen as protected workmen under the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957, and the interpretation of the rules and notifications in relation to the appropriate government for a controlled industry under Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Mayank Chavda and learned advocate Mr. Harsh Raval waive service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and respondent no. 2 to 2.4 respectively.

2. This petition is filled seeking following reliefs: -

“(A) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction while quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 6.6.2023 annexed at Annexure-H passed by Respondent No. 1 authority; and

(B) Pending hearing and final disposal of this Petition, this Hon’ble Court by way of ad-interim/interim relief be pleased to grant a stay of the order dated 6.6.2023 annexed at Annexure-H passed by Respondent No.1 authority; and

(C) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant the cost of the Petition; and

(D) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant such other and further relief as may be considered fit and expedient in the facts of the present case be granted.”

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the order dated 06.06.2023 (Annexure-H, Page No.49) declaring the workman as protected workman is dehors the statutory provisions and without jurisdiction.

4. The facts in brief referred in the petition are as under: -

4.1 On 01.05.2014, the respondent- workmen Nos. 2.1 to 2.4 came to be appointed with Jaypee Corporation Limited (the erstwhile company).

4.2 On 12.06.2014, the service of respondent Nos. 2.1 to 2.4 was absorbed in the petitioner – Company on account of merger of Jaypee Corporation Limited with petitioner – Company.

4.3 Thereafter, an application under the provisions of Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966 (‘the State Rules’ for short), dated 21.09.2022 was preferred by respondent No. 3 – Union seeking declaration of 8 workmen as ‘protected workmen’. Upon filing of application dated 21.09.2022, notice was issued. The petitioner appeared and filed their reply on 23.01.2023 stating that the State Rules would not be applicable to the petitioner – Company since it falls under the purview of the Rules framed by the Central Government. In the written submission dated 13.03.2023, it was stated that since the Rules framed by Central Government would be applicable, the application dated 21.09.2022 shall have to be filed as specified under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 (‘the Central Rules’ for short) on or before 30th April of every year.

4.4 Thereafter, upon transfer of respondents No.2.1. to 2.4.- workmen, a complaint No. 1 of 2023 dated 03.05.2023 was filed in Reference No. 06 of 2023, challenging the transfer on the ground that the workmen are protected workmen. An order dated 06.06.2023 was passed accepting the application of respondent No.2-Union, declaring respondent Nos. 2.1 to 2.4 as protected workmen. Aggrieved by the order dated 06.06.2023, declaring the workmen as protected workmen, the present petition is filed.

5. Heard learned Senior advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi assisted by learned advocate Mr. I. G. Joshi for Singhi and Co. on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Mayank Chavda for respondent No. 1 and learned advocate Mr. Harsh Raval for respondent Nos. 2 and 2.1 to 2.4.

6. Learned Senior advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 06.06.2023, declaring respondent Nos. 2.1 to 2.4-workmen as protected workmen by accepting the application dated 21.09.2022 of Trade Union is erroneous on the following grounds: -

6.1 The petitioner is a Cement Industry and by virtue of Cement Industry being included in the first schedule of Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 is a Controlled Industry as defined under Section 2(ee) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the Act’ for short).

6.2 Since the petitioner is a Controlled Industry under Section 2(ee) of the I.D. Act, the appropriate Government in this case would be Central Government as referred