Gujarat High Court
Hindalco Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Labour,Office Of The ... on 11 September, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12535/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12535 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
=======================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be
allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair
copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation of the
Constitution of India or any order made
thereunder ?
=======================================
HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR,OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF
LABOUR & ORS.
=======================================
Appearance:
MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR NIRAJ SHARMA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR PARITOSH CALLA(2972) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,4
=======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Page 1 of 9
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Sep 17 2024 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 17 20:41:10 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12535/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2024
undefined
Date : 11/09/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following
reliefs:-
"(a) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature
quashing and setting aside the impugned order of
reference dated 14.07.2011 passed by the respondent
No.1;
(b) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this
petition, be pleased to stay the operation, implementation
and effect of the impugned order of reference dated
14.7.2011 passed by the respondent No.1 and further be
pleased to stay the proceedings of Reference (IT) No. 135
of 2011 before the Industrial Tribunal, Bharuch."
2. Facts of the present case are that the petitioner - company
has an unit i.e. Copper Unit at Dajeh and there are 1200
permanent workmen working in Birla Copper Unit. Pursuant to
the charter of demand of respondent No.2 - Union, Conciliation
Case No.7 of 2010 was initiated before the Assistant
Commissioner of Labour under the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred to as "the Act")
wherein the petitioner company had filed replies inter alia
contending that the petitioner company had entered into four
years agreement / settlement in the year 2008 with its workmen
which was operated till 2012. It is contended that in Conciliation
Proceedings, Birla Copper Employees' Union representing
overwhelming majority of the workmen employed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12535/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2024
undefined
petitioner submitted representation dated 12.04.2010
mentioning therein that the settlement arrived at in 2008 and it
was in force and no fresh dispute can be raised for wage
revision. The Union further pointed out that respondent No.2 had
no locus standi and competency to raise the dispute on behalf of
the workmen as it was not representing the workmen of the
company. That some of the workmen filed representation dated
03.04.2010 inter alia stating that there was a settlement in force,
respondent No.2 was misleading and instigating the workmen
and was trying to disturb industrial peace by giving false
promises. It is contended that the Conciliation Officer had
submitted failure report in conciliation case No. 7 of 2010 to
respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 passed the order on
18.0.2010 refusing to refer the industrial dispute with regard to
demand of respondent No.2 to the Industrial Tribunal. It is
contended that being aggrieved with the order dated
18.09.2010, respondent No.2 approached this Court by way of
filing Special Civil Application No. 5764 of 2011 and this Court
without issuing notice to the respondents had directed the
appropriate government to reconsider its decision in the said
order dated 18.09.2010. It is also contended that pursuant to the
order passed by this Court, respondent No.1, after considering
the representation of respondent No.2 had reconsidered its
decision in the order dated 18.09.2010 without hearing the
petitioner and had passed the impugned order of reference
dated 14.07.2011. It is further contended that on receipt of the
order dated 14.07.2011 from respondent No.1, on 18.07.2011
the petitioner made an inquiry and came to know about the
aforesaid petition filed by the Union and order dated 02.05.2011
passed by this Court. It is contended that the reference has been
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12535/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2024
undefined
numbered as Reference (IT) No. 135 of 2011 and the Tribunal
had issued notice dated 04.08.2011 to the parties for filing
statement of claim and written statement.
3. The relevant observation made by this Court (Coram:
Hon'ble Mr.Justice H. K. Rathod) in the order dated 02.05.2011
passed in Special Civil Application No. 5764 of 2011 reads as
under:-
"In light of submissions made by learned advocate Ms.
Desai, let petitioner Union may approach with detailed
representation to appropriate Government - Labour
Commissioner within a period of ten days from date of
receiving copy of present order.
As and when appropriate Government received copy of
representation for reconsidering decision dated 18th
September, 2010 taken by Labour Commissioner, State of
Gujarat, Gandhinagar from petitioner, it is directed to
appropriate Government to reconsider earlier decision
dated 18th September, 2010 in light of decision of Apex
Court in case of Telco reported in AIR 1989 SC 1565 and
recent decision of Division Bench of this Court reported in
2011 (I) CLR 186. The petitioner Union shall have to supply
copy of aforesaid two decisions as referred above to
appropriate Government along with representation.
Thereafter, let appropriate Government may reconsider
such earlier decision dated 18th September, 2010 while
considering representation made by petitioner and two
decisions as referred above by this Court within a period of
two months from date of receiving copy of such
representation from petitioner and communicate decision
to petitioner Union, immediately.
In view of above observations and direction, present
petition is disposed of by this Court without expressing any
opinion on merits."
4. On 04.02.2014, the Division Bench of this Court has passed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12535/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2024
undefined
the following order in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2120 of 2011 in
Special Civil Application No. 5764 of 2011.
"By way of filing this appeal, the appellant has challenged
order dated 2nd May 2011 passed by the learned Single
Judge Special Civil Application No. 5764 of 2011.
2. Heard Mr. K. M. Patel, learned Senior Advocate,
assisted by Mr. Varun K. Patel for the appellant. Mr.
Mansuri has fairly conceded that though he represented
the respondent - union earlier, but, he is not appearing in
the matter as the papers have been taken away from him
by the union.
3. Mr. Patel has mainly contended that the impugned
order has been passed by the learned Single Judge even
without issuing notice to the appellant and the learned
Single Judge has directed the appropriate Government to
reconsider its earlier decision dated 18th September 2010.
We have verified the record and found the same to be true.
Under the circumstances, we set aside the order passed by
the learned Single Judge and remit the matter to the
learned Single Judge to hear the writ petition on merits
after hearing both the sides. We make it clear that we have
not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. The
appeal is disposed of accordingly without any order as to
costs.
Office to list Special Civil Application No. 5764 of 2011
before the learned Single Judge on 6th march 2024."
5. On 14.08.2016, this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. M.
Thaker) has passed the following order in Special Civil
Application No. 5764 of 2011.
"1. Heard Mr. Mansoori, learned advocate for the petitioner
and Ms. Hina Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner
union. Learned advocate for the respondent no.2 is not
present.
2. Mr. Mansoori, learned advocate submitted that the
petitioner union has taken decision not to prosecute this
petition on merits, and to withdraw the petition, and in
furtherance of the said decision, the union has instructed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12535/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2024
undefined
and authorized him to withdraw the petition.
3. He further submitted that, in view of the said instruction
and authorization, by the petitioner union he withdraws
present petition.
4. In view of the said submission by Mr. Mansoori, learned
advocate for the petitioner, and Ms. Desai, learned counsel
for the petitioner union, the petition is disposed, as
withdrawn. Rule is discharged. Interim relief stands
vacated."
6. Heard Mr.Varun Patel, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.Niraj Sharma, learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent - State Authorities.
7. Mr.Varun Patel, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has submitted the same facts which are narrated in
the memo of petition and submitted that the impugned order
dated 14.07.2011 passed by respondent No.1 is unjust and
illegal. He has submitted that the demand raised by respondent
No.2 was barred in view of existing settlement arrived at
between the petitioner and the workmen and respondent No.2
was neither connected with Birla Copper Unit of the petitioner
nor representing any of its workmen and, therefore, the said
Union has no locus standi to raise any industrial dispute. It is
submitted that respondent No.1 refused to refer the demand
raised by respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 had not given
any opportunity of hearing while passing the impugned order
dated 14.07.2011. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that though this Court directed to give opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner, however, without giving such
opportunity, the Industrial Tribunal has passed the impugned
order. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12535/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2024
undefined
the Government having declined the reference earlier on the
ground of existing settlement, it was not open for it to make
reference in absence of any new material showing existence of
industrial dispute warranting reference. It is also submitted that
respondent No.1 while passing the impugned order had
overlooked the aspect of industrial peace and smooth industrial
relations between the parties. He has submitted that the
impugned order passed by the State Authority deserves to be
quashed and set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed.
8. Mr.Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent - State Authorities has opposed the
petition and has submitted that the respondent - Authority has
not committed any error of law and facts in passing the
impugned order. He has submitted that the impugned order
deserves to be confirmed and the petition being meritless
deserves to be dismissed.
9. This court has considered the submissions canvassed by
the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and
considered the facts and circumstances of the case and perused
the impugned order. It appears that respondent No.1, who has
referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for deciding the
dispute, passed the order and the said order of Labour
Commissioner is under challenged in this petition. It is relevant
to note that before passing the impugned order by respondent
No.1, earlier the respondent No.2 - union has approached the
concerned authority and after considering the relevant material
and reply, respondent No.1 has refused to forward the reference
to the Industrial Tribunal for its adjudication. It was observed in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12535/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2024
undefined
the earlier order of respondent No.1 that there was 2(p)
settlement arrived at between the company and the members of
the Union and it is in force at that relevant point of time and,
therefore, the concerned authority came to the conclusion that
since the workmen are enjoying the benefits as per the
settlement which is binding upon them and, therefore, the
demand reference was refused. Again the Union has agitated the
dispute by way of filing petition being Special Civil Application
No. 5764 of 2011, whereby this Court vide order dated
02.05.2011, without issuing any notice to the otherside, has
disposed of the matter with direction that appropriate
government may take appropriate decision on the representation
made by the petitioner. The said order is an ex-parte order, the
petitioner challenged the same by way of preferring Letters
Patent Appeal No. 2120 of 2011 before the Division Bench of this
Court and after hearing and considering the facts, the matter
was remanded back to the learned Single Judge to hear a fresh.
Thereafter, the matter was again placed before the learned
Single Judge and the concerned Union who has preferred the
petition has submitted before the Coordinate Bench of this Court
that the Union has taken a decision not to prosecute the petition
on merits and to withdraw the same and, therefore, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the Union sought permission to
withdraw the petition and the same came to be disposed of vide
order dated 16.08.2016 as withdrawn. It appears that since the
Union itself has shown readiness and willingness that they did
not want to prosecute the proceedings, the impugned order
passed by respondent No.1 is required to be quashed and set
aside as the Union has chosen not to prosecute further and as
the workmen are enjoying benefits of the settlement arrived at
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12535/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2024
undefined
between the company and the union. Considering overall facts of
the case, this Court is of the opinion that though the concerned
Union agitated its grievance before this Court by filing earlier
petition and subsequently it had shown its willingness and
readiness to withdraw the earlier petition, nothing is remained
and, therefore, the impugned order passed by State Authorities
deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petition deserves
to be allowed.
10. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 14.07.2011 at Annexure - A is hereby
quashed and set aside. It is made clear that if the order of
forwarding the reference to the concerned Industrial Tribunal has
resulted into a reference case, the same is quashed and set
aside. Rule is made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
V.R. PANCHAL
