Point of Law: Industrial dispute - Workmen - Hike of wages - Definition of industrial dispute as enumerated in Section 2(k) of I.D. Act, no merit is found in contention of Petitioner - When dispute is clear regarding payment of appropriate wages to workmen from a specified date, scope of challenge by Petitioner seems unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. ROUTRAY, J.

1. The Petitioner has prayed to set aside the reference dated 05.07.2014 of the Government of Odisha, Labour and E.S.I. Department made under the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 12 read with clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short “I.D. Act”).

2. The Petitioner is the management of M/s. Everest Homoeo Laboratory, a registered partnership firm situated in the district of Balasore.

3. Opposite Party No. 5-Everest Homoeo Employees Union, a union of workers stated to be an unregistered union, raised certain demands relating to hike of wages of the workmen in terms of Minimum Wages Act. Sri. Jayanta Kumar Dey and 13 other workmen submitted the demand to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Balasore and in course of action in pursuance to the provisions of the I.D. Act, the conciliation proceeding was initiated. As no consensus has been arrived, failure report dated 19.2.2013 was prepared by the Assistant Labour Officer, Balasore and was sent for action in terms of Section 12(4) of the I.D. Act. Subsequently on 6.9.2013, a revised report was prepared and was sent. Basing on the same, the reference dated 5.7.2014 was made and referred for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Balaosre. The schedule of reference runs as follows:

“Whether the demand of Sri. Jayanta Dey and 13 others workmen of M/s. Everest Homoeo Laboratory, B-3, Industrial Estate, Balasore for wage enhancement of Rs. 2400/- per month w.e.f. 1.4.2012 is legal and/or justified? If not, what should be the details?”

4. The Petitioner challenges the reference by submitting that the same is complete non-application of mind and lacking subjective satisfaction of the authority. It is contended by Mr. Rajib Rath, learned Advocate for the Petitioner that neither any industrial dispute was existing nor subsisting on the date of reference as the Petitioner was regularly paying the dues and wages to its workmen as per their claim under the law. It is further contended that only six workmen were working in Petitioner’s firm on the date of reference and there were eight workmen only on the date of submission of conciliation failure report. The workman, namely, Sri. Jayanta Kumar Dey has been superannuated in the year 2012 and Sk. Sahanwaz Ahamad was also not a workman of the Petitioner’s firm on the date of reference. It is thus urged that the point of reference is an outcome of total non-application of mind and the satisfaction of State Government in making the point of reference is misconceived.

5. The Petitioner has not arrayed the workmen as Opposite Parties in the present writ petition. However, seeking intervention, the workmen have entered their appearance. Along with their intervention application, they have produced a copy of the statement of claim made by them before the Presiding Office, Labour Court, Balasore.

6. The Assistant Labour Commissioner has filed the counter reply on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

7. Mr. T. Pattnaik, learned Additional Standing Counsel for State-Opposite Parties submitted that, non-existence of any industrial dispute on the date of reference as contended by the Petitioner is totally incorrect on facts and such contention of the Petitioner before this Court in the writ petition is not tenable in the eye of law. The failure reports dated 19.2.2013 and 6.9.2013 are clearly manifesting the dispute between the workmen and management. It is further submitted that the revised failure report dated 6.9.2013 is in continuation of the earlier report dated 19.2.2013, that necessitated due to some clerical mistakes.

8. It reveals from Annexure-7 that the reference is specifically regarding enhancement of wages. The dispute is regarding payment of such enhanced wages of Rs. 2400/- per month, whether to be effected from 01.04.2012. The conciliation reports under Annexures-3 and 4 clearly depict that, though the management agreed for enhancement of wages @ Rs.