1wp-10870-09 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10870 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No.256/2010 Krantikari Kamgar Union ..Petitioner. vs. Labour and Enforcement Officer Dadra and Nagar Haveli and others ..Respondents. Mrs Jane Cox, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr K.M. Naik with K.S.Bapat and T.R.Yadav i/b Desai and Desai, Asso.,for respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED: 8TH MARCH,2010 2wp-10870-09 P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the communication dated 24.10.2008 from the Labour Enforcement Officer declining to admit the dispute into conciliation proceedings. The principal complaint of the petitioner against the order is that though in the order the Officer says that he has perused the complaints made by the petitioner and the various documents, the order does not, on the face of it, show application of mind by the Officer to the contents of the complaints and the documents submitted with the complaints. It appears from the order that only one consideration weighed with the Officer that the amounts which were paid by cheques to the holders have been withdrawn by the workers from the bank. 3wp-10870-09 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondents. He relied on two judgments of this Court in the case of East Asiatic and Allied Companies,Bombay and Shelke (B.L.) reported in 1961 I.L.L.J. 162 and the other in the case of Paints Employees Union (by General Secretary) and another vs. Nail (M.D.) (Assistant Commissioner of Labour at Bombay) and another reported in 1966 I.L.L.J. 579 conending that the order passed is in the discretion of the Authority and therefore unless any illegality is pointed out the order cannot be interfered with. 4. We have been pointed out various complaints which were made by the employees in relation to their resignation letters. Their complaint was that they were forced to submit the resignation letters. As per the order of the Officer himself there were documents filed along with the complaints. Perusal of the order shows that though the complaints are referred to in the order, contents of the 4wp-10870-09 complaints are not referred to and the nature of the documents is also not referred to. The documents that were submitted with the complaints obviously were relevant for deciding whether the dispute exists or not. In our opinion, therefore, because the order was in the discretion of the Authority the Authority was under a duty to apply its mind to the contents of the complaints and the documents that were submitted with the complaints. Non application of mind to this relevant material makes the order infirm and, non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, therefore, in our opinion, the order is liable to be set aside. In our opinion, it will be appropriate to direct the Labour Enforcement Officer to hear the complaints afresh and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. In our opinion, following order would meet the ends of justice. 5wp-10870-09 O R D E R 1. Communication dated 24.10.2008 is set aside. Matter is remitted back to the Labour Enforcement Officer for denovo consideration and decision in accordance with law. Considering that it involves right of the workers, the Labour Enforcement Officer shall hear and dispose of the matters, as expeditiously as possible, in any case within six months from the date on which writ of this order is served on him. 2. All contentions available to both sides are kept open. Rule made absolute accordingly. 3. C.A., does not survive. Same is disposed of. (JUSTICE D.K.DESHMUKH) (JUSTICE A.R.JOSHI)