l:f lf BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION NO." ~ /'2006 .g^§^:l (r3 ^"""^"^u ^,,'-^:;^^ S.', i.ur £)..»'i;'t.v' PETITIONERS ^' ^^, ^^^ [fcC ^^^' ?•' .sy^yy <$?•'.^ ^y.. <'^-/ ^•- Suidhulal Prasad, aged about 44 years, son of Shri R.S. Prasad, resident at Sonadih (Rasedi), PO - Raseda, P.S. Baloda Bazar, District Raipur {C.S) Mahesh Mahato, aged about 43 years, son of Shri Birsai Mahato, resident of at Sonadih (Rasedi) PO Raseda, P.S. Baloda Bazar, Distt Raipur (C.G.) Deepak Naidu, aged about 43 years, son of Shri Shaakar Naidu, resident of - at Sonadih (Rasedi) P.0. Raseda P.S. Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 'Pitambar Sahu, aged about 46 years, son of B. Sahu, resident of at Sonadih (Rasedi) P.0. Raseda, P.S. Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Premlal Verm.a, aged about 50 years, son of Shri S.L. Verma, resident of at Sonadih (Rasedi) P.0. Raseda, P.S. Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) -.-/'.? -^. h' RESPONDENTS ITaTs::^ /^'cQyiSf^,^ ^y>-—~^<,^ tf%A/'' -. .'i"\1^. SWfifff&^i A \^^''&lv'~"- /-^^ ^»>-~—--^5; ^^>si~ t^ 6. ^ 1. 2. 3. 4. Govindrara Agarwar, aged about 50 years, son of Late Shri Bechulal, resident of at Sonadih (Rasedi) P.0. Raseda, P.S. Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Authorized representatives of the Workmen of M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Corupany Lunited, Sonadih, Cement Wing, Sonadih, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh through - the Secretary, Department of Labour, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Chhattisgarh Secretariat, Raipur (Chhattisgarhj. [ The Labour Commissioner, State of Chliattisgarh, Department of Labour, District Bilaspur (C.G.) The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) The Labour Coininissioner cuin Concitiation Officer, Department of Labour At Post Raipur, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) •^- 5. M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., represented through its ^ Managing Director, 24, Homi Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai at present Tata Nagar, Jainshedpur Distt. Singhbhum East, Jharkhand. <^' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT / WRITS, ORDER / ORDERS, DIRECTION / DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS / CERTIORARY / PROHIBITION ETC. XI-HC-22 '33; ^TRRra, d'd1y'l(i, ^iTHy ^Q Nf )-r62//^ "7M •STi^I'qiI 'fN?''3Tl^I *tli'*^lftT 3n^r^Rire?^ftg qOTfeqh iiiiRff t? fezt WRSR ^7 3TPOT SSKV 21.4-2006 On a mention being made, thisjcase is taken up. Shri Das with Shri Abhijit SarkEJr, counsel forthe petitioners. , Shri Satish Gupta, Dy.G-A. f6r fie State/respondente No.1 to 4. Noneappears for respondent t^o.5. Heard. 1 The petitioners have fited thi? petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India prayfng for a dir^ctfon tothe respondents no. 1 and 2 to take appropriate aetion under Sectjon 10 read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on th? report of the Conciliation OfRcer-cum- Assistant labour Commissioner. ! Counsel for the petitioner s(jbmitted that some employees of the different branches/department of M^s. TISCO were brought and posted at cement wing on transfer out of whicl} some of them have been retumed back to their parent places after compte^ion of their work at Cement Wing and Some of them iricluding the peljtioners and concemed workmen are continuing at present due to the r^quirement of ttieir services at Cement Wing. It is submitted that Cement ji/Ving is an integral part of M/s. TISCO Limited. It was^not a separate undeijtaking. It is stated tftat on 1-11-1999 the management of Cement Wing has Isieen brought to ttie management of M/s. Lafarge India Limited, theemployeejs who were working in the cemeht wing brought to the notice ofltie respon^lent No. 5 to clarify their position with a request to retum them back to thet' parent depariments and places.Some employees have returned to th^ir parent department. The petitioners requested to return them back to th^ir parent department but the respondent [^^fe^ XI-HC-22 "3'a •^nivi'), ;, i<!«awj,< XRW- I./ |^f )^Z-JO(, •"m, sirar^n Wt^ 3)1^1 WRWffl^ SII^^gRR'CTte -2/' 4ii'i|Ifi<(l-! w^f'? <%'<? tf^n?F( •^ .Sipgti sii^i No. 5 did not consider their request.iThe petitioners submitted representation as per Annexure P-4 dated 17}1-2005 and after receipt, when the representation was not considered.lthe respondent No. 4 was requested to intervene in the matter for settlemen<. It is sybmitted that the respondent no.4 invited the respondent no. 5 as well ^s the petitioners for amicable setUement by notice Annexure P-5. When r^spondent no. 5 did not cooperate, the respondent No. 4/Conciliation Offi4er-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner initiated proceedings under Section!12ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and directed the respondent no. 5 ajs per Annexure P- 5 to participate in the conciliation proceedings. The resp^ident no.5 after reeeMng the notice of Conciliation Officerdid notappear ahd even not agreed to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator under Section 10of je Industrial Disputes Act. Thereafter the petitioners submitted their writterj statemente along' wifri the relevant documents in" support of their claimfe as perAnnexure P-6 to respondent no. 4. It is submitted that the respondenlj no. 4 closed the conciliation proceedings as no settlement and submitted it^ report to the respondents No. 1 and 2 under Section 12 (4) of the Act. Th4 respondent no. 2/Labour Commissioner directed as per Annexure P-7 fie respondent no. 3/the Dy. Labour Commissioner to setUe the dispute,! who directed both ie parties to appear before him. Pursuant to the notij» of respondent no.3, the petitionere appeared before him and submitted written statement as per Annexure P-8. It is alleged that the respondent No. ^ did not cooF>erate and the proceedings ended in failure. I Counset for the petitioners sjjbmits that the respondents no. 1 and 2 are competent to take decision l^y exercising their power vested under [Tli^firt XI-HC-22 ^5i -^nzn^q, -^tepT^, •feTrey iiTqi?flrgr«<rai ^'B_ ^^'"^'s wf..;.'^2-/0^ ''vn. aireRiqi-i K-tl.i* 3D5?i sb4 'aft?i ^^i<ri-Li1'i WM^ ^ Ts^l <^t^r< qr ariiOT sn^i Section 10 of the Act but no actioiji has been taken. The petitioners have made representeUons but noact|on has been taken. Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that s^me and similar disputes between the workmen of the respondent no. 5 at Jajobera, Jameshedpur have been referred by the Jharkhand Govern^neht to the Industrial Tribunal as per Annexure P-9 andorders have been bassed. According to section 12(4)1 if no settlement is arrived at, the conciliation ofRcer shall, as soonjas practicable after the close of the investigation, serid to the appropria^e Government a full report setting forth the steps teken by him for ascertainiijig the facts and circumstances relating to the dispute and for bringingabout^ settlement thereof, together with a full statement of such iacts and circunistances, and the reason on account of which, in his opinion, asettlemen( could not be arrived at. According to Section 12(5), if, on a consideratio^ of the report referred to in sub-section (40, the appropriate Government is ^atisfied that there is a case for reference to a Board, Labour Court, Tribunalior National Tribunal, it may make such reference. Where the appropriatej Government does not make such a reference it shall record and conimunicate to the parties concerned jts reasons therefor. Counsel contend^d that when the proceedings ended in failure under Section 12(4) then under Section 12(5)of the Act, the case was referred. Section 12(5) ofthe Industria hereinbelow:- Disputes Act is relevant and reproduced "12. Duffes of concil^ation officers.— (5) If, on a consideration of the r^port referred in sub-sectton (4), the appropriate (fovemment is safofed ttiat ^ [^Sfeq •Xi-HC-22 '^e^ Sil^^il R7S[I^I WHWgfttT P/Gowri j•! -t- ,J¥ 'S^ -t-SWM^, vS^W^, ^W^ "q^^ / ^L.^.^.bk •/"^ 3T^'?r'?CTiwsfe?r ^- cbi'4l<n4t') ^fTRyTf ^ fe^l' ^f^RSR ^ aifigii snt^ ffrere is a case for r^ference to a Board. Labour Court, Tribunal or Nalfonal Tribunal.it may mafce siKh refofence. Whefe e appmpriate Govemme/rf does nof make such a reference it shall recofd and cdmmunicate to ffiie pafiies concerned ffe reasons appropriate Government is requirec| of Section 12 of ttie Industrial Dispul ffierefor." There is a foree in the co|itention raised by the petitioners. The to act in conforraity with sub-section (5) tes Act. If it is satisfied thatthere is a case for reference to the Board, Labouij Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, it shoukl make a reference. Wherel however, the appropriate Govemment considers it not vrorth to make suph a reference it has to record reasons therefor and communicate to the pafties concemed. As pointed out the matter is pending w'rth the appropriate Gov^rnmentfor a considerable time. Under the circumstences, ir< the opinion of Ihis Court, it is just and proper to issue a direction to the affpropriate Government to take appropriate action in the matter in accordance ^itti law within a period 6f ope month from the date of receipt/production of aicopy of this order and thereafter action taken report be submitted before ^he Additionat Regisfrar (Judicial) of this Court. ! Before parting, it is made c(ear that ttis Court is not expressing any opiniononthemeritsofthecase. | In view of the directions anjd observations madeabove, the petition stands disposed of. ! Sd/- Certified copy as per rules. j Fakhruddin Judge [^T^tfe^ >