Central Power Research Institute vs The General Secretary CPRI Employees Union and The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) and Conciliation Officer

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—Writ petition by the management of central power research institute is directed against the decision dated 18-2-2012 [copy at Annexure-A to the writ petition] rendered by the assistant labour commissioner (central) and conciliation officer, where under the assistant labour commissioner in exercise of his powers u/s 33(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 [for short, the Act] read with Rule 61(1) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 [for short, the Rules] on an application made by the general secretary of the CPRI employees union, directing the management of CPRI to declare five workmen/office bearers of the union namely K. Chennaiah, Y. Solomon, PC Philip, K John and N K Ouseph, as protected workmen and grant protected workmen status to them. This order was passed by the assistant labour commissioner on an application dated 26-4-2011. In terms of this application, the trade union had sought for the status of protected workmen to the above mentioned five workmen for the period from 1-5-2011 to 30-4-2012.

It is aggrieved by this decision, the present writ petition by the management.

Appearing on behalf of the petitioner-management, the main contention urged by Sri MRC Ravi, leaned counsel, is that a basic dispute as to whether the petitioner-institute can be termed as an industry at all was pending decision on a question raised by the management before the central industrial tribunal, Bangalore in CR No 54 of 2007; that having regard to the nature of the activity carried on by the petitioner-institute viz., engaged in research and development activity in the power sector and it is not an activity for the purpose of any business for profit and therefore it can neither be called as a trading activity nor manufacturing activity and therefore the assistant labour commissioner, before whom the issue was raised, without waiting for the decision of the tribunal nor looking into this aspect, has proceeded to allow the application directing the management to declare the status of five office bearers/workmen as protected workers and therefore the order is bad in law etc.

Notice had been issued to the respondent-union and it is represented by counsel Sri T.S. Anantharam, who has raised a preliminary objection viz., that the writ petition has become infructuous, as the period for which the assistant labour commissioner had directed conferring of protected workmen status has already expired and therefore the writ petition should be dismissed.

It is secondly contended that based on the status and even otherwise in respect of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against two of the workmen namely Chennaiah, who was dismissed from service on 29-3-2011 and another John dismissed from service on 13-11-2011, without following the procedure contemplated and in both cases the management has not obtained approval of the tribunal where reference was pending; that those orders have already been challenged before the tribunal and certain interim relief has been granted in such challenges made by the aggrieved workmen to the orders of dismissal and compulsory retirement and this court is further seized of the orders passed by the tribunal granting certain interim relief and therefore this court should not examine the order passed in an independent proceeding on its merit, particularly in this writ petition etc.

It is also submitted that the contention on the part of the petitioner-management that it is not an industry is a belated plea raised before the tribunal only as an afterthought to get over the other consequences and that cannot be construed as main issue.

Be that as it may, it is not necessary for this court to go into this aspect of the matter in a writ petition filed against an order passed by the assistant labour commissioner. If the question as to whether the petitioner institute is an industry at all or otherwise is a matter which is pending before the tribunal in a pending reference. The decision of the tribunal on this question definitely binds the parties. In that event, even the order of the assistant labour commissioner may have to yield to such result depending upon the answer to be given by the tribunal.

This apart, even there are certain interim orders passed by the tribunal in the pending reference, it appears, they are subject matter of writ petitions independently and writ appeal also. If that is so, it is only made clear in this petition, which is one challenging the order passed by the assistant labour commissioner, that it is not necessary for this court to go into the merits or otherwise of the impugned order in such great detail, as in any view of the matter, this will have to be subject to the decision of the tribunal in the pending reference on the question as to whether the petitioner institute is an industry at all or otherwise. While the order passed by the assistant labour commissioner is, therefore, made subject to the outcome of the proceedings before the tribunal in the pending reference and other pending matters before this court independently, no interference is warranted on facts at this stage and this writ petition is disposed of accordingly.