Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 514 (MAD)

P. Arusamy v. The Asst. Commissioner of Labour

2003-03-26

K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM

body2003
Judgment :- The petitioners pray for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated 29.02.2000 and to submit a failure report to the Government of Tamil Nadu in terms of Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act(hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. The following facts are sufficient for the disposal of the above writ petitions:- The petitioners are admittedly, the employees of the second respondent. According to them they were terminated from service unceremoniously on 21.6.1999. The action of the management was due to the fact that the workers had formed a branch union in the second respondent to the dislike of the management. The issue was referred to the the Conciliation Officer and before the Conciliation Officer the management took the stand that none of the employees have been dismissed from service and that they have been only transferred on deputation in terms of the Standing Orders and therefore, no dispute arose under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. The Conciliation Officer on hearing both parties, came to the conclusion that there was no discharge or termination of service of the employees and hence returned the reference by stating that no reference was possible under Section 2-A(1) of the Act and if the workers were aggrieved, they may raise a dispute under Section 2(k) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come forward with the above writ petitions and the only issue raised before me is the competence of the Conciliation Officer to go into the merits of the dispute raised by the petitioners. Reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in BRITANNIA BISCUTT CO. LTD. v. ASST. LAB. COMMR. (1983 (I) L.L.J., 181). The learned Judge while considering the facts of the case finding that the Conciliation Officer chose to render findings on the merits, held that the power of the Conciliation Officer is only to promote a settlement and that his power was not adjudicatory and that he was not competent to decide finally the various points at issue between the opposing parties. It was further observed that he can do is to try to persuade the parties to agree upon a fair and reasonable settlement. 5. It was further observed that he can do is to try to persuade the parties to agree upon a fair and reasonable settlement. 5. On the strength of the above decision, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there was a jurisdictional error in the decision of Conciliation Officer. 6. I have also heard learned counsel for the respondent/management. According to him, on a reading of Section 12 of the Act, it is open to the Conciliation Officer to investigate the issue as provided under Section 12(2) and it is not as though the Conciliation Officer should blindly forward the dispute to the Government for reference without petitioning the party making out a case for reference. Learned counsel also states that in the writ petition in W.P.No.7591 of 2000 the petitioner has resigned from service and his dues have been settled. In W.P.No.7596 of 2000, the petitioner was never subjected to transfer. On the other hand he himself had not reported for duty and therefore, he is not entitled to raise a dispute. 7. I have heard the submissions of both sides. I have perused the orders of the management which was the subject matter of the reference before the Conciliation Officer. 8. The impugned order of the management dated 19.6.1999 shows that for the reasons stated therein, they were called upon to show-cause against further action and also they were directed to be transferred on deputation to other foundries in the management of the second respondent establishment. There is absolutely no order of termination. The order clearly shows that they were only temporarily transferred in view of the perception of the management to maintain proper industrial relations and in order to maintain law and order problem. 9. Therefore, I am inclined to hold that the interpretation of the order of the management by the Conciliation Officer is perfectly justified and inasmuch as no case has been made out under Section 2-A(1) of the Act, he has rightly rejected the petition and had directed the employees to take steps under Section 2-k of the Act and to raise a dispute accordingly. 10. 10. As regards the jurisdiction of the Conciliation Officer, a perusal of Section 12 of the Act is very clear to the effect that for the purpose of bringing about a settlement of the dispute, he has to investigate the issue affecting the merits and the right settlement thereof and do all such things as he thinks fit for the purpose of inducing the parties to come to a fair and amicable settlement. The fact that the jurisdiction of the Conciliation Officer is conciliate, cannot mean that he has to close his eyes as regards the scope of the dispute raised by petitioning party and as to whether a dispute at all, is made out in terms of the petition. In this case, on a perusal of the order passed by the management, he has come to the right conclusion that there was no question of discharge or termination so as to interfere with the provisions of Section 2-A of the Act. 11. In the result, I do not find any error in the order passed by the Conciliation Officer. 12. As contended by learned counsel for the petitioners the Writ Petition Nos.7591 and 7596 require to be dealt with separately. In W.P.No.7591 of 2000, the second respondent has filed a counter stating that the petitioner has resigned from the post and all dues have been settled. Therefore, W.P.No.7591 of 2000 is liable to be dismissed as infructuous. As far as W.P.No.7596 of 2000 is concerned, the petitioner was not subjected to any transfer or deputation and a detailed counter has been filed to the effect that the worker has stopped on his own accord from attending to the Unit and he has not been subjected to transfer by virtue of the order which was impugned before the Conciliation Officer. Therefore, W.P.No.7596 of 2000 is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. 13. In the result, all the above writ petitions are dismissed and W.P.Nos.7591 and 7596 of 2000 dismissed subject to the above observation. No costs.