Indian Overseas Bank vs Regional Labour Commissioner ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7570 Chatt

                                         -1-



                                                                                   NAFR

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR



                                WPL No. 155 of 2022

  Indian Overseas Bank A Body Corporate Constituted Under Banking Companies
  (Acquisition And Transfer Of Undertaking) Act, 1972, Having Its Head Office At
  762, Anna Salai Chennai (T.N), Through Regional Manager Indian Overseas Bank
  Investment Building, Devendra Nagar, Jeevan Bima Marg, Phase-2, Pandri
  Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

                                                                           ---- Petitioner

                                       Versus

1. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Office Of Regional Labour
   Commissioner (Central) Main Road Torwa, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur,
   Chhattisgarh

2. Bodhram Karsh S/o Shiv Prasad Karsh House No.389, Near Sahu Kirana Stores,
   Aara Machine, Kashi Nagar, Korba, Chhattisgarh 495679.

                                                                        ---- Respondents

14/12/2022 Mr. P.R. Patankar, counsel for the petitioner.

Heard.

Issue notice to respondents on payment of PF as per rules. Notices be made returnable in 4 weeks.

Also heard on IA No.1, which is an application for grant of stay/interim relief.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that dispute is raised by Union on behalf of three workers. The dispute raised by the Union was referred to the Central Government. The Union on behalf of workers submitted statement of claim. The petitioner also submitted written statement to the statement of claim submitted by

the Union. As on date, dispute is pending consideration before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur (for short "CGIT Jabalpur"). During pendency of proceedings before CGIT Jabalpur, one of the workers on whose behalf also statement of claim is filed and pending consideration before CGIT Jabalpur, submitted another application before Labour Commissioner. Notice was issued by the Labour Commissioner to the petitioner, upon which, petitioner submitted his reply, specifically stating that the applicant therein i.e. Bodhram Karsh is also an applicant in a case pending before CGIT Jabalpur. Labour Commissioner while hearing both the sides has, in fact, adjudicated upon the dispute as raised by the applicant therein and has issued direction to the petitioner to extend the period of contract and also revise the salary of applicant which was not within his jurisdiction as under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "Act of 1947") the Labour Commissioner acts only as a Mediator and, therefore, direction issued vide Annexure P-1 is per se illegal and without any authority of law. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon judgments in the cases of Madhya Pradesh State Handloom Weavers Co- operative Vs. Shankarlal Gupta reported in LAWS (MPH) 1995 11 19, Lal Chand Vs. State of Haryana reported in LAWS (P & H) 1995 10 43 and Malankara Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. Appachan Varghese reported in LAWS (KER) 1987 11 75.

Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, provision under Section 12 of the Act of 1947, the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, purely as an interim measure, it is directed that the effect and operation of order/note-sheet dated 15.11.2022 (Annexure P-9) and letter/order dated 30.11.2022 (Annexure P-10) shall remain stayed till

the next date of hearing.

List this case in the week commencing 13 th February 2023.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/-/--/-----//--/-/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

Praveen