Allahabad High Court
Sadanand Mishra vs Regional Conciliation Officer & ... on 4 April, 2013
Bench: Pankaj Mithal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 23
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 1956 of 2006
Petitioner :- Sadanand Mishra
Respondent :- Regional Conciliation Officer & A.L.C.,Faizabad & 3 Ors.
Petitioner Counsel :- Pankaj Verma,Misra Dr Dhirendra Kumar
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,R.P. Awasthi,Ravi Prakash
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Heard Sri Satya Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No.1 and2 and Sri Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4.
The services of the petitioner with respondent No.4 were dispensed with. Therefore, according to him, an industrial dispute had arisen. Accordingly, he made an application to the Conciliation Officer/Assistant Labour Commissioner for resolving the said dispute.
The Conciliation Officer/Assistant Labour Commissioner by the impugned order dated 15.2.2006 has rejected the conciliation proceedings as barred by time.
The submission is that the Conciliation Officer or the Assistant Labour Commissioner exercising the power of the Conciliation Officer has no jurisdiction to reject the claim raised by the petitioner, much-less on the ground of delay or laches.
It may be noted that the services of the petitioner were dispensed with on 1.7.1999. He had applied for conciliation of the matter on 10.11.2004 i.e. after four years four months and nine days. The delay in initiating the conciliation proceedings is not material but the moot question is whether the Conciliation Officer has the power to reject the conciliation proceedings on any ground or on the ground of delay.
The aforesaid conciliation proceedings were initiated under the Provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is para materia with that of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Scheme of both the aforesaid Acts envisages for the settlement of an Industrial Disputes by the Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal, National Industrial Tribunal as the case may be and for conciliation of the dispute by the Conciliation Officer/Conciliation Board or through arbitration.
Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act provides that where any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, other than relating to public utility service, the Conciliation Officer shall hold conciliation proceedings in the prescribed manner and if a settlement is arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings, he shall send a report to the appropriate Government along with the settlement signed by the parties to the dispute and in case it is not possible to arrive at a settlement, he will close the investigation and submit a report in that regard to the appropriate Government setting forth the steps taken by him for resolving the disputes and the reasons on account of which the settlement could not be reached.
There is no provision prescribing any time limit for initiation of conciliation proceedings and the Conciliation Officer has not been empowered under the aforesaid Act to reject the conciliation proceedings on any ground.
Section 4-F of the U.P.Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides for appointment of a Conciliation Officer for the purposes of mediating and promoting the settlement of Industrial Disputes in the manner prescribed and the powers of Conciliation Officer in this regard have been described under Section 5-D of the said Act.
Section 23 of the said Act empowers the State Government to make rules regarding the subjects specified therein and clause (d) of Section 23 includes "the procedure to be followed in conciliation proceedings". Thus, the State Government is vested with the power to make rules pertaining to the procedure which is to be followed in the conciliation proceedings.
In pursuance to the above rule making power contained in Section 23 of the Act, U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 have been framed and enforced. The said rules vide Rule 4 provides for powers, procedure and duties of Conciliation Officer. The aforesaid Rule 4 for the sake of convenience is reproduced herein below:
"4. Powers, procedure and duties of Conciliation Officers. - (1) On receipt of information about an existing or apprehended industrial dispute, the Conciliation Officer may, if he considers necessary, forthwith arrange to interview both the employers and the workmen concerned with the dispute at such place and time as he may deem fit and endeavour to bring about a settlement about the dispute in question.
(2) The Conciliation Officer may hold a meeting of the representatives of the parties jointly or of each party separately.
(3) The Conciliation Officer shall conduct the proceedings expeditiously and in such manner as he may deem fit.
(4) Where a reference has been made by the State Government in the matter of a dispute under Section 4-K of the Act to the Tribunal or Labour Court or the Adjudicator, the Conciliation Officer concerned shall forthwith forward to the Tribunal or the Labour Court or the Adjudicator concerned, the file of the Conciliation Board relating to that matter, immediately after the application in Form I is filed by the Union."
The aforesaid Rule contemplates that where Conciliation Officer receives information about the existence of an industrial dispute or that such a dispute is apprehended, he he obliged to arrange interview of both the employer and the workman concerned and to make endeavour to bring about a settlement expeditiously and in the manner as may be deemed fit. In case the settlement is arrived it shall be recorded in the prescribed proforma and got signed and shall be sent to the State Government along with the report.
Thus, under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Rules framed thereunder there is no time limit prescribed for initiating the conciliation proceedings and the Conciliation Officer is vested with the power to mediate and to bring about a settlement and with no other authority. The said power inherently includes the power to record a failure but it does not confer any power upon the Conciliation Officer to reject the conciliation proceedings.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents were at a loss to justify the authority of the Conciliation Officer to dismiss the conciliation proceedings as barred by time as under the scheme of the Act no time limit has been prescribed for initiating the conciliation proceedings.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find that the conciliation officer/Assistant Labour Commissioner exceeded its jurisdiction in dismissing the conciliation proceedings as barred by time. Therefore, the impugned order dated 15.2.2006 passed in C.P. Case No.Nil/2004 contained in annexure - 1 to the petitioner is held to be without jurisdiction. Accordingly, a writ of certiorari is issued quashing the same with the direction to the Conciliation Officer/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Faizabad to proceed with the conciliation proceedings and to take appropriate steps in accordance with law most expeditiously
Order Date :- 4.4.2013
brizesh
