-^^(yo \— \ IN THE HIGH COURT OF 3UDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH W.PJsl NO.^t^0 /2006 PETITIONER --: ^;^' ^?3%/"' Qc^V-^'^"'' ^c'-''' <°";'" .•-?• <(,~' ^^^ ,^"s^iy" RESPONDENTS ^:1, Bharat Aluminum Company Limited (BALCO),through its Company Secretary Balco Nagar, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary Labour, Government of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Inspector under the Chhattisgarh Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1961, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh The Assistant Commissioner of Labour District Korba, Chhattisgarh General Secretary Bharat Aluminium Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC) Balconagar Korba (C.G) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/3^ OF THE CONSTmON OF INDIA The petitioner named above most humbly and respectfully begs to submit as under:- [^^s!:Sssf-SssS:SSS'^?s^i^f''{!:!s!'^ssssv^sss3!SS£» ssss. mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION ("S) N0^140of2006 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (BALCO) Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Abhishek Sinha, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Malay Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No.4. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 21st day ofOctober, 2010) 1. Heard leamed counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity ofthe order dated 29-11-2006 (Annexure - P/8) passed by the Inspector, CG Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961 & Assistant Labour Commissioner, Korba. 3. At the very outset, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the identical issue came up for consideration before this Court in Managing Director, Bharat Aluminum Company Limited v. Inspector under the Chhattisgarh Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1961, Korba and other connected matters, which were allowed. by this Court. Leamed counsel further submits that against the said order, the respondents therein i.e. Bharat 1 W.P.No.1595 of2006 (decided on 9-1-2007) Aluminium Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC) approached the Division Bench ofthis Court by filing writ appeals 'm.Bharat Aluminium Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC) and Another v. Managing Director, Bharat Aluminum Company Limited & others . The said appeals were dismissed by the Division Bench, maintaining the order passed by the leamed Single Judge of this Court in Managing Director, Bharat Aluminum Company Limited . Leamed counsel prays that this petition may be disposed ofm the aforesaid terms, to which leamed counsel appearing for the other side have no objection. 4. This Court, in Managing Director, Bharat Aluminum Company Limited, held as.under: "9...The Inspector who is authorized to see the proper implementation ofthe Standing Order of the Compaay meant for wokman under the provisions of Section 15 of fhe Act, 1961 is barred from deciding the dispute with regard to the application and interpretation of such Standing Order. A bare reading ofSection 13 of the Act, 1961 makes it clear that ifany question arises as to the applicationor interpretation ofa standing order, an employer, an employee or a representative of employees may refer the question to the Labour Court having jurisdiction and the Court shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, decide the question and his decision shall be final and bmding on the parties. Reference to Section 17 of the Act, 1961 which provides for penalties and procedure irrelevant in the present case as Section 17 provides for penalties and procedure in case of the provisions of the standing order are not complied with. It follows from the above stated provisions and discussions that the dispute mvolved in the present batch of writ petitions is as to whether the Standing Order for W.A.No.45 of 2007 (decided on 31-7-2008) Workmen would be applicable to the respondents-employees under the provisions of Section 13 oftheAct, 1961.Thus,fheInspector has no jurisdiction to decide the said issue m exercise of his power under the provisions of Section 15 ofthe Act, 1961." The Division Beiich of this Court, in Bharat Aluminium MazdoorSangh (INTUC) and Another , observed as under; "10...A conjoint reading ofsections 13, 15 and 17 of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961 makes it amply clear that the powers of Inspectors under the said Act are not adjudicatory and the Inspectors are not authorized to undertake the exercise of adjudication of the disputes, particularly the disputes regarding application and interpretation ofthe standing orders." Accordmgly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of order passed by this Court in Managing Director, Bharat Aluminum Company Limited . Consequently, the impugned order dated 7. 29-11-2006 (Annexure P/8) is set aside. No order asto costs. Amit Sd/- Satish K. Agnihatri Judge .X.