The central legal point established in the judgment is that orders prohibiting a strike and the proposed legal action for cancellation of recognition of a trade union must be legally sustainable, and the industrial dispute regarding the strike must be referred for adjudication as required by Section 10(3) of the I.D. Act.

JUDGMENT :

B.N. Mahapatra, J. - In the present writ application, the Petitioner M/s. Birla Tyres Workers Union seeks for a direction to quash the letter dated 09.08.2010 and the Order Dated 30.07.2010 under Annexures 1 and 11 respectively. Annexure-1 is a letter issued by Opp. Party No. 2-Labour Commissioner, Orissa on 9.8.2010 directing the President of Petitioner-Union to refrain from the strike situation and to advise the workers to report for duty by 10.8.2010 and ensure peace and harmony in the industry and in case of failure on the part of the Petitioner-Union legal action would be initiated against it under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'I.D. Act') and Rule 20 of the Verification of Membership and Recognition of Trade Union Rules, 1994 (for short, "Rules 1994") which might also lead to cancellation of recognition of trade union. Under Annexure-11 Government in Labour and Employment Department in exercise of power Under Section 10(3) of the I.D. Act, passed Order Dated 30.7.2010 prohibiting continuance of the strike/lock out in the premises of M/s Birla Tyres Workers Union.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts and circumstances leading to filing of the present Writ Petition are that the Petitioner is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and operates in the industry of Opp. Party No. 4. On 25.9.2007 the said Union submitted an application for verification of membership and recognition of the trade union under Rules 1994. Since no effective steps were taken on its application, the Petitioner-Union approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5911 of 2005 which was disposed of on 14.9.2005 with a direction to hold the election within four months from the date of the order. Since the said direction of this Court was not carried out, on 07.11.2008 a direction was issued for personal appearance of Labour Commissioner and District Labour Officer. On 21.12.2008 the Labour Commissioner was directed to comply with the direction given in the said Writ Petition within four weeks. On 12.12.2008 the election under the Rules, 1994 was held and the Petitioner-Union came out successful and Opp. Party No. 4-employer declared the Petitioner-Union as the recognized Union. The Petitioner's case is that though Opp. Party No. 4 declared the Petitioner-Union as a recognized Union, it did not comply with the provisions of Rules 1994. On the other hand, Opp. Party No. 4 entered into an agreement with the other unions. Since certain aspect relating to the service conditions of the workers was not followed, the Petitioner-Union submitted a charter of demand of twenty three points in the prescribed manner. Though the labour machinery wanted to settle the issue by way of discussion, the Management of Opp. Party No. 4 did not participate in the discussion. On the other hand, to frustrate the cause, Opp. Party No. 4 started creating unpleasant situation for which Opp. Party No. 3, Assistant Labour Commissioner issued a letter dated 31.12.2009 Under Section 30(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure. On 28.04.2010 the Petitioner-Union also sent a memorandum to the Collector, Balasore regarding high-handed action of Opp. Party No. 4. Though the workers and the office bearers of the Petitioner-Union submitted application before Opp. Party No. 4 for leave, the latter without considering the same deducted 8 days' wages of the said workers. This very fact having been brought to the notice of the labour machinery, Opp. Party No. 3, issued letter dated 7.5.2010 to Opp. Party No. 4 indicating therein that such deduction of wages is not in accordance with the provisions of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and requested Opp. Party No. 4 to pay the wages of the workers without any deduction. Since Opp. Party No. 4 did not comply with the above direction of Opp. Party No. 3, Opp. Party No. 3 issued a letter dated 24.5.2010 requiring the presence of the representative of the Petitioner-Union and the representative of the Management on 8.6.2010 in