Gujarat High Court
Manager Shri/Director Shri, Cooper ... vs Its Employees Represented Through ... on 8 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16070/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16070 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
MANAGER SHRI/DIRECTOR SHRI, COOPER STANDARD INDIA PVT.
LIMITED
Versus
ITS EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED THROUGH CHEMICAL MAZDOOR
PANCHAYAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HAMESH C NAIDU(5335) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DHAVAL PARMAR ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 08/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1 This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Reference Order passed by the State Government referring the dispute to the learned Labour Court, as well as the order dated 03.01.2022 passed by the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad below Exhibit 9, whereby the application filed by the petitioner raising a Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:32:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16070/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined preliminary objection with regard to the jurisdiction to adjudicate the industrial dispute came to be rejected.
2 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner-
Company is engaged in the business of manufacturing components. Respondent No.1 raised three demand matters against the petitioner, out of which two demand matters, being Reference (IT) No.77 of 2021 and Reference (IT) No.79 of 2021, pertaining to 47 workmen, have been referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad. The third demand matter, being Reference (LCAD) No.110 of 2020, pertaining to general demands, has been referred to the learned Labour Court, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.
3 Heard learned advocate Mr. Naidu for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Mishra for the respondent, and learned AGP Mr. Dhaval Parmar for the respondent- State.
4 Learned advocate Mr. Naidu submits that the References which were referred to the learned Tribunal for adjudication specifically mention that 47 employees were involved and the reliefs were sought for those employees. The said issues pertain to strike or lock-out, transfer orders, prohibition of strike, etc. Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:32:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16070/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined In contrast, the demand which has been referred to the learned Labour Court for adjudication is of a general nature, relating to pay revision benefits such as bonus, canteen facilities, leave allowances, recognition of the Union, etc. Learned advocate Mr. Naidu submits that such general demands ought to have been referred to the learned Tribunal; however, relying upon the submission made by the respondent that the strength of the employees of the petitioner company was less than 100, the same was referred to the Labour Court.
4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Naidu further submits that contradictory averments have been made by the respondents, inasmuch as in the two References referred to the learned Tribunal, the strength of the employees is stated to be more than 100, whereas in the present Reference the strength is stated to be less than 100. Learned advocate Mr. Naidu submits that though a preliminary objection was raised by filing an application below Exhibit 9, the same has been rejected by the learned Labour Court only on the ground that the strength of the employees was stated by the Union to be less than 100. Learned advocate Mr. Naidu submits that the Labour Court ought to have considered that the present Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:32:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16070/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined Reference relates to general demands for wage revision and, having regard to the strength of employees as mentioned in the other two References, the jurisdiction would lie with the learned Tribunal. Hence, the petition deserves to be allowed by transferring the present dispute to the learned Tribunal for adjudication.
5 At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Mishra has submitted that having regard to the pendency of two other References which are being tried by the learned Tribunal, if the present Reference is also referred to the learned Tribunal, he would have no objection.
6 Learned AGP Mr. Parmar submits that, as per the Schedule, the strength of the workmen is mentioned as less than 100 and, therefore, in view of the notification dated 21.04.1982 issued by the Labour and Employment Department, the demand was rightly referred to the learned Labour Court for adjudication. Hence, no error has been committed in referring the dispute to the learned Labour Court.
7 Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, this Court is of the considered view that when two demands raised by the very same Union have Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:32:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16070/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined already been referred to the learned Tribunal for adjudication, the State Authority ought to have referred the present demand, which pertains to wage revision, also to the learned Tribunal. It further deserves to be noted that in the terms of Reference for the earlier disputes, the strength of the employees was stated to be more than 100. On that ground as well, instead of referring the present dispute to the learned Labour Court, the competent authority could have referred the same to the learned Tribunal.
8 Considering the aforesaid aspects and also the consent expressed by the learned advocate Mr. Mishra, the impugned order dated 03.01.2022 referring the dispute to the learned Labour Court is hereby quashed and set aside. The dispute is directed to be referred to the learned Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad for adjudication.
9 With the above direction, this petition is disposed of accordingly.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:32:23 IST 2025