Dismissed

M/S M.R.F. Limited, Rep. by Its Authorised Rep. Shri Michael Gracias v. State of Goa through the Chief Secretary and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC9 Oct 2012WP/600/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Goa dismissed a writ petition challenging a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act. The court held that disputes regarding union validity and settlement acceptance fall for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal and do not warrant setting aside the reference. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition striking down the reference is dismissed.

M/S M.R.F. Limited, Rep. by Its Authorised Rep. Shri… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 600 OF 2012

¶4

M/s M. R. F. Limited, a Company Registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its factory at P. B. No.1, No.258, Tisk, Usgao, Ponda Goa – 403 401. Represented by its Authorised Representative Shri Michael Gracias, S/o Franklin Gracias aged 58 years, Senior General Manager. … Petitioner

¶5

V e r s u s

¶6

State of Goa through the Chief Secretary having its office at Secretariat, Porvorim Goa.

¶7

Commissioner of Labour Government of Goa, Shram Shakti Bhawan, 2^nd Floor, Patto Plaza, Panaji Goa.

¶8

Asst. Labour Commissioner Government of Goa, Office of the Asst. Labour Commissioner, Govt. Complex Bldg., Tisk, Ponda Goa.

¶9

Goa MRF Union Represented by its General Secretary Mr. Sudhakar Naik, major of age, C/o Mr. Gokuldas T. Gaude, H. No.282, Dr. P. S. Ramani Road, Wadi, Talaulim, Ponda Goa. … Respondents

¶10

:2:

¶11

Mr. G. Sardessai, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Advocate General with Ms. P. Sawant, Addl. Government Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3.

¶13

CORAM : S. J. VAZIFDAR &

¶14

DATE : 9 th OCTOBER, 2012.

¶15

P.C.

¶16

Respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the

¶17

Commissioner of Labour, Government of Goa, Assistant Labour Commissioner, Government of Goa and the Goa MRF Union.

¶18

The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus striking down a reference dated 20.04.2012 under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The reference is in respect of the industrial disputes between the petitioner and its workmen represented by respondent no.4 as specified in the schedule thereto.

¶19

Mr. Sardessai, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the reference has been made mechanically and there is no case for reference of

¶20

:3:

¶21

the dispute for adjudication. He contended that the respondents ignored the settlement dated 06.04.2011 arrived at on the charter of demands dated 16.09.2010. The Goa MRF Employees Union is a majority union and the settlement in accordance with law had been arrived at between the union and the petitioner. It is further alleged that the majority of the members of the fourth respondent union have also accepted the settlement. Accordingly, the petitioner contends that there is no subsisting dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. Accordingly, a reference was not counterfeited.

¶22

There is no warrant for setting aside the reference. The submission that there are no disputes capable of reference is not well founded. There is a serious dispute as to the validity of the alleged settlement itself. Added to this is the fact that there is a dispute even as to which of the two unions has a majority. Respondent no.4 is also a registered union. The learned Advocate General stated that respondent no.4 has 464 members and the Goa MRF Employees Union with which the settlement has been arrived at has 171 members. Further, he stated that only 10 members of the fourth respondent union had signed the

¶23

:4:

¶24

settlement. There is a dispute regarding their authority to have done so. The learned Advocate General relied upon the correspondence between the Asst. Labour commissioner and respondent no.4 wherein respondent no.4 has stated that the signatories to the letter dated 06.06.2011 are not the office bearers with the executive committee of the fourth respondent's union and were also not authorised to sign the settlement on behalf of their members.

¶25

It is not necessary for us in this writ petition to express any opinion as to whether the allegations including regarding the strength of the two unions are correct or not. Suffice it to state that these the disputes which must be considered by the Tribunal in the reference.

¶26

It is clarified that the Industrial Tribunal is not expected to question the validity of the reference. It is not necessary therefore to set out the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of National Engineering Industries Ltd., V/s State of Rajasthan and others, (2000) 1 SCC 371.

¶27

Mr. Sardessai, stated that the petitioner is entitled to raise a preliminary issue before the Industrial Tribunal. He also submitted that the petitioner is also

¶28

:5:

¶29

entitled to seek an award in terms of the settlement. The petitioner is certainly entitled to do so as well as to take any other steps or adopt any other proceedings in accordance with law. It is for the Tribunal however to decide whether an issue ought to be decided as a preliminary issue or not. It is for the concerned authorities to decide all other questions including as to whether the petitioner is entitled to an award in terms of the settlement.

¶30

Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶31

S. J. VAZIFDAR, J

¶32

U. V. BAKRE,J

¶33

at*

M/S M.R.F. Limited, Rep. by Its Authorised Rep. Shri Michael Gracias v. State of Goa through the Chief Secretary and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S M.R.F. Limited, Rep. by Its Authorised Rep. Shri Michael Gracias v. State of Goa through the Chief Secretary and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Adv. Aires Rodrigues Vs Goa Cricket Association, Rep. by Shri Prasad Phaterpekar, General Secretary and Anr.

. Vs Mr. Ramesh Gaonkar, P.I. Sanguem Police Station, (Pw 22 in Sessions Case NO.19/2006) and Anr.

Shri Shailesh Vernekar Vs Canacona Municipal Council through Its Chief Officer

Shri Mohan P. Sawant Vs Goa Foundation through Its Secretary Dr. Claude Alvares and Anr.

Shri Bernardo Silveira Vs State of Goa through Its Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Mr. Shashi Ranjan Kumar Vs the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority, Thorugh Its Member Secretary, and 2 Anr.