JUDGMENT
D.R. Dhanuka, J.
PART I – (Judgment dictated in Open Court in the Morning Session)
1. The petitioner is a registered Trade Union entitled to represent the workmen employed with Hindustan Lever Research Centre. The petitioner union has filed this petition on behalf of and for benefit of one of its members Shri M. D. Jadhav.
2. From the year 1968, the said Shri Jadhav started attending to the job work of attending to the air conditioning plant of the respondent no. 2. The petitioner contends that Shri Jadhav was a regular workman of respondent no. 2 since 1968. The Respondent No. 2 contends that Shri Jadhav has allowed to perform the said job work merely as on contract basis and Jadhav became regular employee of respondent no. 2 only on 19th October, 1981 as Process Worker, F-Grade. Sometime in 1973-74, Shri Jadhav was required to attend to water pumps at the Research Centre of respondent no. 2 on contract basis. It is the case of Respondent No. 2 that at that time Shri Jadhav used to work for several companies on contract basis and get such jobs attended to even by some of his own employees.
3. Sometime in the year 1981, Shri Jadhav applied for a job with the second Respondent company. Shri Jadhav was selected as a process worker w.e.f. 19th October, 1981 i.e. as a Process worker in F-Grade. A letter of appointment was issued to Shri Jadhav. Ultimately he was confirmed in the said post on 19th January, 1982.
4. By letter dated 10th April, 1986, the petitioner Union made a demand with respondent no. 1 as set out in the said letter. No such demand was made by the petitioner or Mr. Jadhav in the past. A copy of the said letter is Exhibit “A” to the petition. The said demand related to money claim for the period commencing from the year 1968. By the said letter, the petitioner Union raised a demand to the effect that Mr. Jadhav be classified as A.C. Plant Mechanic with respective effect from the year 1968 and be paid overtime wages, other benefits and privileges etc. on this footing as per settlements in force from time to time. Apart from this demand for classification of Mr. Jadhav as A.C. Plant Mechanic, the petitioner Union also raised a money claim on behalf of the said Mr. Jadhav for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,17,278-68 and other amounts purported to be computed for the period commencing from the year 1968 onwards on the footing that Shri Jadhav was a regular workmen of respondent no. 2 right from the year 1968 and the contract’s relied on by respondent no. 2 in this behalf was unjust. The statement of computation annexed with the said letter shows that the money claim made by the petitioner was too stale and was in nature of an afterthought. The respondent no. 2 repudiated the same demand by its reply letter dated 2nd July, 1986. The respondent no. 2 contended that the said workman was in employment of respondent no. 2 only from 19th October, 1981 and he was properly classified as Process Worker. During the course of conciliation proceedings held before the Commissioner of Labour, the Commissioner of Labour reached the conclusion that the demand in respect of classification of Shri Jadhav as Air-conditioning plant Mechanic w.e.f. 14th April, 1986, was liable to be admitted in conciliation and not the money claim made on behalf of Shri Jadhav. The Commissioner of Labour partly admitted the demands for conciliation and not all the demands raised. The Commissioner of Labour submitted his failure report to the Government of Maharashtra. The Government of Maharashtra passed an Order of Reference on 19th November, 1987, bearing No. ADH 1586/228469/370/Lab-3 (Exhibit – 1) to the Affidavit in Reply of Shri Deepak Rajaram Morey, Assistant Commissioner of Labour. By the said order of Reference, the Industrial Tribunal was directed to adjudicate upon the dispute set out in the schedule to the Order of Reference. The said schedule reads as under :-
“That Shri M. D. Jadhav, should be classified as Airconditioning Plant Mechanic with effect from 14.4.1986 from the present post of process worker.”
5. The petitioner did not appear during courses of adjudication proceeding at the material time. On 19th September, 1989, Shri S. M. Limaye, Industrial Tribunal, Bombay rejected the said reference i.e. Reference (II) No. 100 of 1987, observing in the award made therein that neither of the parties had cared to file any pleadings, documents and adduced evidence and none was found to be interested in prosecuting the reference. The conduct of the petitioner is thus blameworthy. The said Award was not challenged by the petitioner. The said Award has acquired finality.
6. By this petitioner filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned order dated 18th September, 1986 passed by the Commissioner of Labour as Conciliation Officer (Copy whereof is Exhibit “F” to the petition) on the ground that all the claims raised by letter dated 10th April, 1986 ought to have been admitted in conciliation so that the necessary reference could be sought in respect of all the claims under section 10(1)(d) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner seeks issue of a writ of certiorari or any other writ order on direction so as to quash the impugned order (Exhibit “F” to the petition) in so far as it omitted to admit the money claim to conciliation i.e. the claim made by the petitioner Union on behalf of Shri M. D. Jadhav against respondent no. 2 for Rs. 3,17,272-68 plus bonus, plus leave wages etc. for the period commencing from the year 1968. The petitioner desires that the said money claim should also be covered by an order of reference u/s. 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947.
7. I have gone through the petition and the affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents as well as the affidavit in rejoinder.
8. It appears to be the submission of Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 to the effect that the money claim made on behalf of Shri Jadhav was too stale is justified. The said claim related to the period commencing from the year 1968 as whatsoever and no explanation or justification whatsoever was furnished by the petitioner as to why such a stale claim was made as late as 10th April, 1986 i.e. after about 18 years should be entertained in conciliation proceedings under Section 12 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
9. In my opinion, the commissioner of Labour rightly exercised his discretion in not admitting the stale claim referred to hereinabove for conciliation. No justification whatsoever is put forward by the petitioner or by the said Shri Jadhav explaining the abnormal delay in making of such a stale claim.
10. In my opinion, the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity. It is of significance that the petitioner did not even prosecute Reference (II) No. 100 of 1987. The Award made by the Industrial Tribunal on 19th September, 1989 has also acquired finality.
11. In the result, the petition fails. The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
12. The protonotary and Senior Master is directed to return back the record received by him from the Industrial Court in respect of the abovereferred reference.
JUDGMENT
PART – II – (Afternoon Session)
1. In the afternoon session as soon as the Court assembled for its judicial work, Shri S. K. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner made a request to the Court that the petition be heard further and the learned counsel for the petitioner be allowed to cite authorities and make submissions. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was busy in another Court in the morning session. Since the judgment dictated by the Court in the morning session was not yet transcribed or signed, the said request was acceded to. Both the learned counsel have been heard in detail.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the ratio of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Avtar Sharma & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. , Telco Convey Drivers Mazdoor Sangh & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (1989 II CLR 329 (SC)) and also the ratio of the judgement of High Court of Gujarat in the case of Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (1992 I CLR 372). The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on certain authorities during course of his submissions. The learned counsel submitted that ‘the appropriate Government’ was not entitled to examine the merits of the dispute while considering the application for making of order of Reference u/s. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned counsel submitted that the appropriate Government was merely concerned with the question as to whether Industrial Dispute was apprehended as alleged by the workman or by the Union. The learned counsel submitted that the Competent Authority seized of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had no jurisdiction to refuse to admit the claim to conciliation marely on the ground that the claim made appeared to him to be stale. The learned counsel submitted that such an order of Commissioner of Labour was liable to be considered as adjudication of dispute on merits which could not be done by the conciliation officer. The learned counsel also submitted that the impugned order exhibit P to the petition was in any event liable to be quashed by this Court as no reasons were set out in the order as to why part of the claims made by the petitioner were not admitted in conciliation.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 invited the attention of the Court to the recent judgement of this Court in the case of Association of Engineering Workers v. Permanent Magnets Ltd. & Ors. (1993 – I CLR 93). In the abovereferred judgment this Court took the view that law conferred discretion upon the conciliation officer whether he should enter upon conciliation or not. In this case Ashok Agarwal, J. of our High Court observed that it was not necessary that each and every dispute no matter has to be and is to be referred to the Tribunal for adjudication. In the case of East Asiatic & Allied Companies, Bombay v. Shelice (B.L.) also, our Court has held that the legislature had invested the conciliation officer with the discretion in the matter the decided as to whether the dispute should be admitted to conciliation or not.
4. In my opinion the conciliation officer was not bound to entertain a stale claim for holding the conciliation proceedings. If the conciliation officer refuses to admit a stale claim to conciliation, it does not follow there from that the conciliation officer is directly or indirectly adjudicating upon the merits of the dispute or upon the merits of the claim. In this context, I did enquire from the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner had explained the delay of about 18 years in making of the claim anywhere in the petition and as to whether any letters were addressed to respondent no. 2 in the post i.e. prior to 10th April, 1986. The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any specific averments from the petition. The impugned Order is an administrative order. The impugned order is not a quasi judicial order. It was open to the Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 to point out to the Court by filing an affidavit as to why the money claim made by the petitioner by its letter dated 10th April, 1986 was not admitted by the Commissioner of Labour in conciliation. In para 3 of the affidavit dated 30th January, 1988, filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1, 2 and 4, it is clearly explained that it was the practice of the office of Commissioner of Labour not to admit the stale claim in conciliation. The said practice is in conformity with law. In my opinion the impugned order does not suffer from legal infirmity. The impugned order is not liable to be set aside merely because it does not disclose the reasons for not admitting the part of the claim made by the petitioner in the order itself. The impugned order is not shown to be illegal.
5. Before I part with this case, it is necessary to make certain observations in respect of unfounded allegations of bias made by the petitioner No. 1 against the Respondent No. 1 in the petition. In para 5 of the petition it is alleged that the Respondent No. 1 acted as an agent of Respondent No. 2 and the respondent no. 1 had acted with prejudise in the matter. In my opinion that the allegations made in the petition against the respondent no. 1 are totally baseless and unfounded.
6. In the result, the order which was dictated by the Court in the morning session dismissing the petition and discharging rule with no order as to casts in maintained and confirmed after further consideration of the matter. The order now dictated by the Court in the afternoon shall form integral part of the order passed by the Court in the morning session.
7. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
8. Issue of certified copy is expedited.
