Allowed

The Chairman and Managing Director ,Food Corporation of India and 3 Others v. Union of India and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Oct 2021WRIC/40313/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner exceeded jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by ordering the petitioner to comply with vague Court orders instead of merely recording reasons for failed conciliation. The writ petition was allowed and the impugned report set aside.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order/report dated 20.08.2018 passed by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Kanpur is set aside as illegal and vitiated for being in excess of jurisdiction.

The Chairman and Managing Director ,Food… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40313 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- The Chairman And Managing Director ,Food Corporation Of India And 3 Others Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Bhupendra Nath Singh,Piyush Mishra,Pramendra Pratap Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to implead "General Secretary, F.C.I., Mazdoor Sangh" as counsel for the respondent No.3 in the array of the parties to the writ petition during the course of the day.

¶6

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Pramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

¶7

The impugned order/report dated 20.08.2018 passed by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Kanpur in purported exercise of powers under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The trigger for the conciliation proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Conciliation Officer/Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Kanpur was a notice of strike dated 08.09.2017 served by the respondent No.3 upon the petitioners.

¶8

The operative portion of the impugned order/report dated 20.08.2018 is extracted hereunder:

¶9

"The Union has filed complaint through a notice of strike dated 8.9.2017 which was seized in conciliation and proceedings were initiated meanwhile the Union moved to the Hon'ble High Court Allahabad by way of filing the writ petition No.7719 of 2018. The Hon'ble High Court while disposing of the writ directed the respondent (Dy CLC (C), Kanpur) to examine the representation and if found there would be any industrial dispute the matter may be referred to the Govt.

¶10

The representation dated 8.8.2017 and 9.10.2017, the notice of strike dated 8.9.2017 and representation dated 25.11.2017 filed by the Union has been thoroughly examined and found that the Union has demanded compliance of Hon'ble High Court/Hon'ble Supreme Court Orders in respect of workers of Koshikalan Depot, Khurja Depot and Quarshi Depot. Thus, the non compliance of the orders of the Hon'ble Courts cannot be termed as an industrial dispute there is no question to refer the matter to the Govt. for further adjudication to the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal. The genuine of the workers has already been decided by the Hon'ble High Court/Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of the workers, the question and demand remains regarding non implementation of Hon'ble Court orders by the management of Food Corporation of India. Therefore, the management must make comply of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court/Supreme Court discussed above within the time frame otherwise the union is free to take recourse before the appropriate Court for non compliance of orders of the Hon'ble High Court/Hon'ble Supreme Court as the case may be.

¶11

The union has filed relevant document in respect of workers of Koshi kalan (old) Rail head, Dist. Mathura. The credential of the workers have been verified are attached as Annexure 'A' with this report.

¶12

The management must comply with the orders of the Courts/Authority within 30 days otherwise Union is free to take recourse before the Appropriate Forum/Court for non compliance of the orders (supra).

¶13

In view of the findings recorded above, the orders of the Hon'ble High Court Allahabad is complied with."

¶14

Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order has been passed in excess of jurisdiction conferred by Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶15

The only case of the respondent No.3-Union is that various orders passed by this Court as well as Supreme Court have not been complied with. In case such orders are not being complied with, the petitioner has efficacious remedies in law to approach the Courts by taking out appropriate proceedings.

¶16

Sri Pramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 contends that the petitioners have not complied with the orders passed by this Court and hence no relief can be granted.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.

¶19

Notice of strike was served upon the petitioners by the respondent No.3 on 08.09.2017. The notice alleged non compliance of various orders passed by this Court as well as Supreme Court. Details of the orders and particulars of cases are not disclosed in the notice or the impugned order. The conciliation proceedings were on foot before the Conciliation Officer under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The conciliation failed. No settlement could be arrived at in the conciliation proceedings. The case of the petitioners is that they have not flouted any orders passed by this Court or the Supreme Court. Further, the respondent No.3 or any of the aggrieved workman have not been taken out any proceedings before the competent court alleging non compliance of any of the Court.

¶20

Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 upon failure of conciliation proceedings, the lawful course of action for the conciliation officer is to make a full statement of facts and circumstances and record reasons which in his opinion prevented a settlement and forwarded the report to the appropriate government.

¶21

The provision of Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 being relevant to the controversy is extracted hereunder:

¶22

"Section 12. Duties of conciliation officers :- (1) Where any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, the conciliation officer may, or where the dispute relates to a public utility service and a notice under Section 22 has been given, shall, hold conciliation proceedings in the prescribed manner.

¶23

(2) The Conciliation Officer shall, for the purpose of bringing about a settlement of the dispute, without delay, investigate the dispute and all matters affecting the merits and the right settlement thereof and may do all such things as he thinks fit for the purpose of inducing the parties to come to a fair and amicable settlement of the dispute.

¶24

(3) If a settlement of the dispute or of any of the matters in dispute is arrived at in the course of the conciliation proceedings the conciliation officer shall send a report thereof to the appropriate Government 5 [or an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government] together with a memorandum of the settlement signed by the parties to the dispute.

¶25

(4) If no such settlement is arrived at, the conciliation officer shall, as soon as practicable after the close of the investigation, send to the appropriate Government a full report setting forth the steps taken by him for ascertaining the facts and circumstances relating to the dispute and for bringing about settlement thereof, together with a full statement of such facts and circumstances, and the reasons on account of which, in his opinion, a settlement could not be arrived at.

¶26

(5) If, on a consideration of the report referred to in sub-section (4), the appropriate Government is satisfied that there is a case for reference to a Board, [Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal],it may make such reference. Where the appropriate Government does not make such a reference it shall record and

¶27

communicate to the parties concerned its reasons therefor.

¶28

(6) A report under this section shall be submitted within fourteen days of the commencement of the conciliation proceedings or within such shorter period as may be fixed by the appropriate Government:

¶29

[Provided that, [subject to the approval of the conciliation officer] the time for the submission of the report may be extended by such period as may be agreed upon in writing by all the parties to the dispute]."

¶30

In this case, the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Kanpur/Conciliation Officer has issued a direction to the petitioners to comply with the orders of the Courts/Authorities. The details of the orders to be complied with are left vague. The impugned order passed by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Kanpur/Conciliation Officer is in the teeth of the provisions of Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 194y and is in excess of jurisdiction conferred by law.

¶31

The impugned order dated 20.08.2018 passed by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C), Kanpur is illegal and vitiated. The impugned order dated 20.08.2018 passed by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Kanpur is set aside.

¶32

It is clarified that the Court has not pronounced

¶33

any opinion on the rights of the workmen/respondent No.3-Union.

¶34

The writ petition is allowed.

¶35

Order Date :- 18.10.2021 Ashish Tripathi

The Chairman and Managing Director ,Food Corporation of India and 3 Others v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chairman and Managing Director ,Food Corporation of India and 3 Others v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushila Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Udaybhan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Sana Tyagi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajeev Kumar Vs Deputy Labour Commissioner U.P. Ghaziabad Region , Ghaziabad and 3 Others

C/M S.P. Convent School and Another Vs Central Board of Secondary Education and Another

G.M. N.C. Railway and Anothe R Vs Jagrup and Another