Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6671/2009 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6671 of 2009
=========================================================
GENERAL
ENGINEERING MAZDOOR UNION - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MRPCCHAUDHARI
for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 4.
MRS
YOGINI V PARIKH for Respondent(s) :
5,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 19/04/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned Advocate Mr. PC Chaudhari for petitioner, learned AGP Ms.
Sachi Mathur for respondents NO.1,2,3 and Learned Advocate
Mrs.Yogini V. Parikh who is appearing for respondent No. 4 and 5.
According
to petitioner who has raised an industrial dispute in respect of
employees of respondents no.3 and 4 in the year 1995, above dispute
is rejected by labour court by order dated 31st December,
2005, then, Special Civil Application has been preferred challenging
award passed by the labour court in the year 2007. In the year 2009,
petitioner raised another industrial dispute in respect of employees
of respondent no.3 and 4, out of that, total three demands
Respondent No.1 and 2 rejected to refer couple of dispute for
adjudication to labour court. It is necessary to note that looking
to prayer made in para 10(A), which order is under challenge or
which inaction on the part of the authority is challenged, no
details have been given. It is vague prayer made by petitioner in
para 10(A) of petition which is quoted as under:
10(A)
That Your Lordships be pleased to issue an order, direction and/or
writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction, directing the respondent NO.1 to reconsider the
decision rejecting reference of dispute to the competent Labour
Court for adjudication of the same on merits as early as possible.
And be further pleased to direct the respondents NO. 1 and 2 to
refer the same to the Labour Court for adjudication.
Apart
from that, considering submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. PC
Chaudhari, who has pointed out that Conciliation Officer has
referred two disputes, 2 and 3 by order dated 17th June,
2009. He raised objection about dispute NO.1, for that, proceedings
before Conciliation Officer has been noted in IDC 93/09 page 68
where Conciliation Officer has made note that after considering
representation from respective parties, dispute which was referred
to for adjudication in Reference NO.26 of 1995, where dispute NO.1
which was referred to and present demand no.1 which almost similar
which fact has been persuaded to union, therefore, that demand has
not been referred to for adjudication and only demand NO.2 and 3
have been referred to for adjudication after admitting same in
Conciliation Proceedings.
Learned
Advocate Mr. Chaudhari submitted that demand NO.1 has not been
similar to earlier demand no.1 of reference no.26 of 1995 and union
has not been persuaded and has not withdrawn to the effect that
present demand NO.1, this fact is not correctly noted by the
Conciliation Officer. He also submitted that page 70 item no. 5 in
respect to Circular of 2001, demand reference no.26 of 1995, where
specific demand was not made. Ultimately it comes to the fact
whether conciliation officer who has made endorsement on 4th
June, 2009 is found to be correct or not because learned Advocate
Mr. PC Chaudhari submitted that union has not agreed to suggestion
or persuation made by conciliation officer that demand no.1 of
reference no.26/95and demand no.1 of present dispute are same,
therefore, union is insisting to admit it in conciliation. According
to my opinion, this being factual dispute, normally Court has to
believe evidence of below authority to be correct and that has to be
considered being conclusive evidence, therefore, it is open for
petitioner to approach conciliation officer in respect to
proceedings dated 4th June, 2009, page 68 whether union
has not insisted for demand no.1 as it is covered by dispute no.1
referred to in reference no.26 of 1995 or not. Let necessary
application is to be made to conciliation officer by union and
conciliation officer concerned is directed to decide it and examine
whether the statement made by learned Advocate Mr. PC Chaudhari is
correct or not and whether proceeding noted by conciliation officer
is correct or not. Let he may decide it in accordance with law after
giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to respective parties
within two months from the date of receiving copy of this order.
Accordingly present petition is disposed of by this court without
expressing any opinion on merits. It is made clear that if any
adverse order is passed by conciliation officer, then, it is open
for petitioner to challenge same before appropriate forum in
accordance with law.
(H.K.
Rathod,J.)
Vyas
Top