Pix Transmission Limited vs State of Maharashtra and Others

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.—Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both the sides.

The only issue which arises for consideration in this case is that after the Failure Report was submitted by the Conciliation Officer on December 22, 1997 to the Government of Maharashtra, subsequent thereto, settlements outside the conciliation took place between the petitioner and the workmen of petitioner Company, through respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5-Unions, on May 4, 1998, July 4, 1998 and December 7, 1998, u/s 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Although the abovesaid events were placed before the appropriate authority, the appropriate authority, before issuing the order of reference on July 12, 1999, has obviously not taken, those relevant facts into account to address itself to the issue as to whether there was any subsisting industrial dispute which was required to be referred for enquiry to the Industrial Court. From plain reading of the order of reference dated July 12, 1999, it is not possible to comprehend that the appropriate authority has considered this aspect of the matter at all.

The counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that by virtue of the aforesaid three settlements, workers to the extent of 86% of the total strength of 411 workmen, are already covered; and all the disputes have been amicably resolved by virtue of the said settlement executed u/s 2(p) of the Act. He, therefore, submits that since there was no subsisting dispute between the parties on the date when the reference order came to be issued on July 12, 1999, the appropriate authority had no jurisdiction to pass the said order. In this connection, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court reported in National Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, of the said decision, the Apex Court has observed that if there is no industrial dispute in existence or apprehended, appropriate Government lacks power to make any reference.

In my view, it was imperative on the appropriate authority to examine the effect of settlements arrived at between the parties as to whether there was any subsisting industrial dispute at the relevant time and if the same was to be answered in negative, in that case, in view of the decision of the Apex Court, the appropriate authority had no jurisdiction to issue the order of reference. Since the State Government has not addressed itself to this crucial aspect, there is no other alternative but to set aside the order of reference dated July 12, 1999 and leave it to the Government of Maharashtra, which is the appropriate authority to reconsider the matter by taking into consideration the effect of settlements outside the conciliation arrived at between the parties after the failure report was submitted on December 22, 1997.

The learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has placed reliance on the decision reported in The Secretary Indian Tea Association Vs. Ajit Kumar Barat and Others, to contend that although settlements have been arrived at the same are not comprehensive and there are certain disputes which still arise between the parties. According to him, in any case, since 14% of the workers have not entered into any settlement, it was obligatory for the appropriate authority to make reference so as to protect the interest of these 14% workmen.

From the reading of the reference order, as observed above, it is not possible to conclude that all these aspects have been considered by the appropriate authority. It would be, therefore, open to the respondents to raise all contentions before the appropriate authority so as to persuade it to make reference in spite of the aforesaid settlements outside the conciliation referred to above. In my view, the decision cited by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, is of no assistance to the present case.

In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of reference dated July 12, 1999. is quashed and set aside. It is, however, made clear that it will be open to the appropriate authority to re-examine the matter by giving opportunity to both the parties, to decide whether to make a reference or not to make reference in spite of the settlements outside the conciliation arrived at after the Failure Report dated December 22, 1997. The said decision be taken by the appropriate authority as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the receipt of this order.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.