Bombay High Court
Maharashtra General Kamgar Union vs Pix Transmissions Ltd on 19 November, 2010
Bench: S.A. Bobde, P. D. Kode
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 392/2009
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 3972/2008
1. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union,
through its Joint Secretary,
Mr. Premlal Hirkhane,
C/o Kishor Gautam, Gorle Layout,
Plot No.86, Jaitala Road, Nagpur.
2. Anil s/o Mahadeorao Pundekar,
aged about 40 years,
R/o Ward No.6, Wanadongri
Hingna Road, Nagpur.
3. Arun s/o Fakiraji Taksande,
aged about 38 years,
C/o Vishwanath Ramteke,
Buddha Vihar, Near Gopal Nagar,
Nagpur. .. APPELLANTS
.. Versus ..
1. Pix Transmissions Ltd.
A Company incorporated and
registered under the Companies
Act, 1956 having its registered office
at Plot No. J-7, M.I.D.C., Hingna
Road, Nagpur, through its Deputy
General Manager (HRM)
2. Shri Narendra Singh Nagbhire,
Assistant Labour Commissioner &
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:37:50 :::
2
Conciliation Officer, under the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
Having his office at Bhonsla
Chambers, Civil Lines, Nagpur. .. RESPONDENTS
Mr. M.V. Mohokar, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. H.V. Thakur, Advocate for Respondent no.1.
Mr. D.P. Thakre, AGP for Respondent no.2.
...
CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & P.D. KODE, JJ.
DATED : NOVEMBER 19, 2010
ORAL JUDGMENT (per S.A. Bobde, J.)
1. Heard.
2. The appeal is taken up for final hearing by consent.
3. This L.P.A. is preferred against the interim order dated
17.6.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the learned Single
Judge has stayed the order of the Conciliation Officer. The Conciliation
Officer had stayed the order of transfer of two employees belonging to
appellant no.1 Union.
4. In brief the facts are that the Conciliation Officer under the
Industrial Disputes Act,1947 stayed the transfer of two employees of
respondent no.1 Company belonging to appellant no.1 Union. The validity
of that order is in question before the learned Single Judge. The learned
Single Judge has prima facie found that the powers of the Conciliation
Officer are restricted to bringing about settlement between the parties and
the Conciliation Officer does not have powers of adjudication. Section
33A of the Act reads as follows:-
"33A. Special provision for adjudication as to
whether conditions of service , etc. changed during
pendency of proceedings
Where an employer contravenes the provisions of
Section 33 during the pendency of proceedings 6
[before a Conciliation Officer, Board, an arbitrator,
a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] any
employee aggrieved by such contravention, may make
a complaint in writing, 6 [in the prescribed manner,-
(a) to such Conciliation Officer or Board, and the
Conciliation Officer or Board shall take such
complaint into account in mediating in, and
promoting the settlement of, such industrial dispute;
and
(b) to such arbitrator, Labour Court,
Tribunal, or National Tribunal and on receipt of
such complaint, the arbitrator, Labour Court,
Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be,
shall adjudicate upon the complaint as if it were a
dispute referred to or pending before it, in
accordance with the provisions of this Act and shall
submit his or its award to the appropriate
Government and the provisions of this Act shall apply
accordingly.]"
This Section confers power on the authorities as mentioned therein to
entertain a complaint against the employer who contravenes the provisions
of Section 33 of the Act. Section 33 prohibits an employer from changing
conditions of service or inter alia dismissing an employee during the
pendency of the proceedings. We find on a plain reading that clause (a) of
Section 33A does not confer any power of adjudication on a Conciliation
Officer to adjudicate and, therefore, to interfere with the action of an
employer. The Conciliation Officer is entitled only to take into account a
complaint made by the employee while mediating in and promoting the
settlement of the industrial disputes. Moreover, the Act makes a clear
demarcation between the duties and functions of the Conciliation Officer
and the powers of the Labour Court. Section 4 of the Act reads as
follows:-
"4. Conciliation Officers
The appropriate Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, appoint such
number of persons as it thinks fit, to be Conciliation
Officers, charged with the duty of mediating in and
promoting the settlement of industrial disputes.
(2). A Conciliation Officer may be appointed for a
specified area or for specified industries in a
specified area or for one or more specified industries
and either permanently or for a limited period."
This section indicates that the Conciliation Officers are charged with the
duty of mediating in and promoting the settlement of industrial disputes.
Section 7 of the Act reads as follows:-
"7. Labour Courts
(1) The appropriate Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or
more Labour Courts for the adjudication of
industrial disputes relating to any matter specified in
the second Schedule and for performing such other
functions as may be assigned to them under this Act.
(2) .............
(3) ............."
This Section clearly contemplates the constitution of the Labour Courts for
the purposes of adjudication of industrial disputes. Thus we see no reason
to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Mr. Thakur, learned
counsel for respondent no.1 also urged that the Conciliation Officer in any
case had no power to stay the transfer of the employees since the
employees were transferred before the commencement of the conciliation
proceeding. It is, however, not necessary to go into the said question at this
stage in the appeal. However, we make it clear that all questions raised in
the writ petition are left open for arguments. The appeal disposed of.
5. The learned Single Judge may consider the disposing of the writ
petition expeditiously.
JUDGE JUDGE
.........
