Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1537 (DEL)

MOTI LAL BHAGAT v. GOVT. OF NCT THRU CONCILIATION

2007-07-31

HIMA KOHLI

body2007
HIMA KOHLI, J. ( 1 ) IT is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that the facts of the present case are identical to the facts of the case decided in WP (C) No. 6209/2005 entitled 'yad Ram v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi', on 25th May, 2007. While deciding the aforesaid matter, where a complaint was filed by the petitioner/workman therein against the management at M/s Air Catering Ltd. before the Conciliation Officer for indulging in unfair labour practice, and an order was passed by the Conciliation Officer refusing to refer the dispute of the petitioner for adjudication to the Industrial Adjudicator, this Court examined the scope of the interference by the Conciliation Officer and observed as below : "13. A bare perusal of Sections 25t and 25u of the Act show that while the former prohibits an employer or a trade union from committing any unfair labour practice, the latter deals with the penalty for committing unfair labour practices. Section 2 (ra), on the other hand defines an "unfair labour practice". Section 2 (k) of the Act, while defining an "industrial dispute", does not in express or implied terms, exclude from its ambit, disputes relating to "unfair trade practices". Similarly Section 2 (ra) simply defines "unfair trade practice" and nowhere is it mentioned in the Act that matters pertaining to the same would not be an "industrial dispute". Therefore, even if an industrial dispute is sought to be raised on the ground of any party is engaging in the acts of unfair labour practices, still the mechanism to be followed for redressal of such a dispute has to be the one as prescribed under the Act. Thus there is no force in the plea taken on behalf of the respondent that the complaint filed by the petitioner was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 34 read with Sections 25t and 25u of the Act. " ( 2 ) IT may be noted that in the present case, the impugned order dated 31st august, 2005 passed by the Conciliation Officer is an order on merits wherein it has been observed that the workmen before the Conciliation Officer, who had filed their complaint, were not employees employed by M/s Taj Sats Air Catering ltd. " ( 2 ) IT may be noted that in the present case, the impugned order dated 31st august, 2005 passed by the Conciliation Officer is an order on merits wherein it has been observed that the workmen before the Conciliation Officer, who had filed their complaint, were not employees employed by M/s Taj Sats Air Catering ltd. , but were employees of various contractors and thus did not fall under the provisions of Item 10 of the Fifth Schedule of the. D. Act. While making these observations, it was held that the complaint of the workmen could not be referred to as an industrial dispute for the purposes of adjudication under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. ( 3 ) BY holding as above, the Conciliation Officer has passed an order on the merits of the case. This is not permissible under the Industrial Disputes act as the function of a Conciliation Officer under Section 12 of the Act is to try and settle the industrial dispute by means of conciliation and mediation and to try and help the parties find an amicable solution to their disputes. However, it is not for the Conciliation Officer to adjudicate upon the dispute on merits as adjudication is within the purview of the Labour Court/industrial tribunal and not of the Conciliation Officer. ( 4 ) IN view of the aforesaid position, and keeping in view the observations made by the Court in the aforesaid judgment dated 25th May, 2007 while examining the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31st August, 2005 is set aside. The respondent is directed to take appropriate action on the petitioner's complaint dated 12th march, 2007, within a period of four weeks, in accordance with law. ( 5 ) THERE shall be no orders as to costs. ( 6 ) THE Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order be served on the Conciliation Officer.