Amitava Roy, J.

1. These proceedings in succession between the same parties dredge up interrelated issues admitting of analogous adjudication and having been so heard, are hereby being disposed of by this common determination.

2. I have heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, advocate assisted by Mr. S. Chakraborty, advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned State counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Mr. P.K Goswami, senior advocate assisted by Mr. S.N. Sarma, advocate and Mr. S. Sarma, advocate for the Respondent No. 4 and Mr. N. Dutta, senior advocate assisted by Mr. L.P. Sharma, advocate for the Respondent No. 5.

3. The Petitioner-union claims to be the representative body of the employees of the Hindustan Unilever Ltd., Respondent No. 4 as its members and registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926 ('the Act, 1926'). The Respondent-company is engaged in the activity of manufacturing of various types of consumer goods with its factory at Doom Doom. On 21.12.2003 the Petitioner-union submitted a charter of demand for revision of wages, dearness allowance and other conditions of service of the workmen and following necessary deliberations an amicable settlement was arrived at on 24.04.2004 addressing most of the claims made. At the relevant point of time, the Petitioner-union was the only recognized body authorized for collective bargaining on behalf of its members/employees/workmen of the Respondent-company.

The agreement contained Clause 15, which stipulated that if the settlement was implemented, the workers of the factory, then, would be entitled to an allowance of Rs. 200 per month, nomenclatured as Settlement Implementation Allowance ('the SIA') w.e.f. 1.4.2007. According to the Petitioner-union though, the workers pursuant to the agreement rendered their full cooperation for the effective functioning of the factory and increase in its production, the management did neither release the due SIA from 1.4.2007, and also reneged from its commitment qua variable allowance contingent on the rise of the production of the consumer goods. As following its persistent requests a parley with it was held on 6.7.2007 and though, the deliberations were carried overnight nothing fruitful did result. On 7.7.2007, however, when the workers reported for duty, they were denied entry in the working premises, following which the Petitioner-union through its letter dated 9.7.2007 sought the intervention of the Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer, who issued a notice fixing 15.7.2007 for conciliation. The management, however, on receipt of the notice declared a lockout of the factory w.e.f. 15.7.2007. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Tinsukia, having been again approached by the Petitioner-union in this regard, he issued a notice on 16.7.2007, fixing 18.7.2007 for conciliation, which, however, was not attended to by the Management. It also did not do so on the subsequent dates so fixed.

4. The Petitioner-union has alleged that during the subsistence of the lockout, another union, namely, Unilever (PP) Factory Shramik Sangha, Respondent No. 5 was formed and registered with the active support and initiative of the management. This was followed by a tripartite settlement on 2.9.2007 between the management, the newly formed Union and the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Tinsukia, in terms whereof, the lockout was lifted.

The Petitioner-union has maintained that the settlement is violative of all norms and practice, and more particularly, opposed to the directions issued by the Labour Commissioner to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Tinsukia, vide its letter dated 27.8.2007, requiring the latter to identify the majority union through a fair and transparent process and thereafter initiate the conciliation meeting. The Petitioner-union in these circumstances has viewed this omission on the part of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Tinsukia, to be his failure to exercise his jurisdiction under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act') t