ORDER R.J. Kochar, J.
1. Rule.
2. By consent the petition is heard and disposed of at this stage itself as no useful purpose would be served by keeping it for final hearing. I have done so, as a question of general demands of a large number of employees is involved.
3. The petitioner is registered under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and is also a registered Trade Union under the provisions of the BIR Act, 1946 as a representative and approved Union for the co-operative banking industry in the local area of Greater Bombay. The Respondent No. 1 is a Co-operative Bank duly incorporated under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The Petitioners are. aggrieved by an order dated August 22, 2000 passed by the Commissioner of Labour, refusing to extend the period of conciliation proceeding and refusing to grant Failure Certificate under Section 86(cc) of the Act.
4. To appreciate the point of law the following few facts are required to be stated.
5. The Petitioner Union served a notice of change under Section 42(2) of the Act demanding revision in wages, dearness allowance and other service conditions of the employees of the Respondent Bank. Since there was no settlement the Petitioner Union approached the Conciliator for commencement of the Conciliation Proceeding under Chapter X of the Act. Accordingly the Conciliator entered the dispute in the register book for the purpose to commence the conciliation proceeding. It appears that the industrial dispute couid not be settled during the conciliation proceeding within the prescribed period under Section 62 of the Act. By a letter dated January 21, 2000 the Respondent Bank wrote to the Conciliator to declare closure of the conciliation proceeding. The conciliation proceeding was closed on March 10, 2000 and Failure Report was submitted by the Conciliator on April 19, 2000 to the Chief Conciliation Officer. The said Failure Report was published on the notice board of the office of the Commissioner of Labour on April 27, 2000 with copies having been forwarded to both the parties. It appears that by its letter dated April 7, 2000 the Petitioner Union . requested the Conciliator to issue a Failure Certificate. It further appears that the Petitioner Union wrote another letter to the Commissioner of Labour making certain allegations against the Conciliator and requesting the Commissioner to extend the period of conciliation proceeding and to give a Failure Certificate under Section 86(cc) of the Act. By the reply dated August 22, 2000 the Commissioner of Labour declined to accede to the request of the Union, The Petitioner Union is aggrieved by the aforesaid communication of the Commissioner of Labour.
6. Shri Bukhari, the learned counsel for the Petitioner-Union, has strenuously submitted that for want of Failure Certificate the Petitioner Union could not approach the Wage Board under Section 86(cc) of the Act to refer the industrial dispute for decision. He has pointed out that under the provisions of the Act it was obligatory for the conciliator to issue a Failure Certificate without which no reference can be filed either before the Wage Board or before the Industrial Court, as the case may be. Shri Bukhari has pointed out that the Union had requested the Conciliator for issuance of Failure Certificate but he failed to issue such Failure Certificate. In the absence of such Failure Certificate the Petitioner Union requested the Commissioner of Labour to extend the period of conciliation proceeding as there was no settlement of the industrial dispute. Shri Bukhari therefore submitted that the Commissioner should be directed to reopen the conciliation proceeding and the Conciliator should be directed to issue a Failure Certificate under Section 86(cc) of the Act. Shri Bukhari has also pointed out that it was the practice of the office of the Labour Commissioner to issue such Failure Certificates when the disputes are not settled. As there was no Failure Certificate issued to the said letter by the Conciliator the Petitioner Union was not able to refer the dispute for adjudication or decision to the Wage Board for want of such Failure Certificate.
7. Shri Rele on the other hand seriously contested the claim of the Petitioner Union. He has pointed out that Chapter X of the Act is self contained code regulating the conciliation proceeding. For every stage and step limitation is provided for and there is no escape from the steel frame of the limitation provided under the Act. Shri Rele pointed out that it is not the end of the matter as the Petitioners can always submit fresh notice of change and commence and complete the conciliation proceeding in accordance with law if it so desired.
8. I do not agree with the submission of Shri Bukhari that in the interest of settlement of the industrial dispute the Conciliator should be directed to reopen the conciliation proceeding. There is hardly any room or space to plough in the furrows of the B.I.R. Act, our wisdom or skill of interpretation of a statute. This Act is complete by itself and it takes care of each and every contingency and minutely provides for every possible eventuality that might arise. In the context of the present problem the Act confers an absolute right on the representative of employees to refer any prescribed individual dispute to a Wage Board for decision under Section 86(cc) and to the Industrial Court for arbitration under Section 73-A of the Act. This right however, is tightly conditioned by limitation of two months from the date of completion of the proceeding before the Conciliator. Chapter X of the Act elaborately provides for every stage of the conciliation proceeding from Section 54 to Section 65, from commencement to completion of the conciliation proceeding, powers of a Conciliator or a Board and time limit for stages of the conciliation proceeding. Section 64 makes a provision when the conciliation proceedings are not to be commenced or continued in certain cases. Section 62 prescribed shortest periods for every stage and also the maximum outer limit which the State Government can exercise its powers to extend the time limit. The aggregate period is statutorily ceiled at one year and two months.
In our case there is neither any mutual agreement to extend the time limit nor the State Government has exercised its plenary powers to extend the time limit. We, have, therefore, the following undisputed dates:
10.6.1999 Commencement of the Conciliation proceeding under Section 55.
10.7.1999 Ceiling for completion of the conciliation proceeding under Section 62.
It appears that since there was no formal closing of the conciliation proceeding the Respondent Bank sought such formal declaration by its letter dated January 21, 2000 and pursuant thereto, it appears, the Conciliator closed the proceeding on March 10, 2000 and submitted his Failure Report to the Chief Conciliator under Section 58 on April 19, 2000 and this Failure Report was published on April 26,2000 with a copy forwarded to both the parties by the covering letter dated April 27, 2000. It would be therefore, very clear that though the statutorily prescribed time limit had expired on July 10, 1999, it was the Respondent Bank which carried a mistaken impression that the proceeding was not completed and therefore sought a formal declaration of the closing of the proceeding which was done on March 10, 2000 and the Failure Report came to be submitted on April 19, 2000 and its publication on April 27, 2000. Giving the benefit to the Petitioner Union, we can assume the date of completion of the conciliation proceeding under Section 63(iii) as April 27, 2000 though actually the time limit had expired on July 10, 1999. Even after April 27, 2000 the Union could have referred the industrial dispute for decision under Section 86(cc) of the Act, within two months but instead of doing that the petitioner started futile and unwarranted correspondence with the Conciliator and the Commissioner of Labour seeking a so-called Failure Certificate to explain its disability to approach the Wage Board for decision by way of a Reference. In my opinion once the Failure Report is published under Section 63(iii) there is no question of issuing any separate failure certificate as the material and relevant date of completion of the conciliation proceeding is the date of publication of the Report of the Conciliator and the Petitioner Union could have made a reference with two months therefrom to the Wage Board under Section 86(cc) or under Section 73-A to the Industrial Court. To ask for a failure certificate is an exercise in futility after the closing of the conciliation proceeding on March 10, 2000 as a Conciliator having recorded in his Report the failure of the conciliation proceeding and also at that time no such demand was made and the Union's Representative even refused to sign the notings of the Conciliator. Further, it is fallacious to argue that inspite of publication of the Conciliator's Report, a failure certificate must be issued separately by the Conciliator or the Chief Conciliator or the Commissioner of Labour to enable the Petitioner Union to refer their dispute to the Wage Board under Section 86(cc) of the Act. According to me, no such Failure Certificate is necessary after the publication of the Conciliator's Report under Section 63(iii) which statutorily declares completion of the conciliation proceeding and the Petitioner Union, gets right under Section 86(cc) to refer the dispute for decision to the Wage Board within two months therefrom. The B.I.R. Act mandates the parties to be vigilant about their rights. The Petitioner Union is not at all right and justified in approaching the authorities to cover their default which was fatal in the circumstances discussed above. The Petitioner Union cannot be permitted to rake up the closed proceeding under the law. The Petitioner Union has failed to discharge its duties towards the employees vigilantly as the Representative and the Approved Union for the Co-operative Banking Industry. The crown given by the Act carries the statutory obligations also on the Representative Union.
9. The petition fails and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.