Judgment:
1. The petitioner in this writ petition challenges the reference made by the opp. party no. 1 under Clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section (2) (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with regard to the dispute between the petitioner and the opp. party no. 3 - workman vide order dated 12.3.1999. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its corporate office at Pune in Maharashtra and a site office at Rourkela in the district of Sundergarh (Orissa). The petitioner company was engaged in work of expansion and modernization of Rourkela Steel Plant and the opp. party no. 3 - workman was engaged by the petitioner-company as a Helper. On completion of the work, the opp. party no. 3 - workman and other workers were retrenched on 25.3.1995 on payment of all their dues. However, the opp. party no. 3 - workman raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer (State) opp. party no. 4 challenging his retrenchment. The petitioner company was called upon to file a reply/show cause by the opp. party no. 4 and the matter was referred for conciliation. A conciliation was held on 23.9.1995, which was settled on certain terms and conditions. The said settlement was reduced to writing on 23.9.1995 and all the parties put their signatures before the said Assistant Labour Commissioner opp. party no. 4, before whom the settlement was arrived at. According to the said settlement, the petitioner company was to give re-employment to the opp. party no. 3 - workman under any of its sub-contractors immediately which was agreed to by the opp. party no. 3 - workman. According to the petitioner - company, the opp. party no. 3 - workman has also agreed that he has no further claim against the petitioner company on account of his previous employment.
It is the case of the petitioner company that as per the said settlement, the opp. party no. 3 - workman was absorbed as a Helper by M/s. Varsha and Co., a Sub-contractor under the petitioner company and the opp. party no. 3 - workman continued to work under the said Sub-contractor, but he left the job on 14.2.1996. Subsequently thereafter, the opp. party no. 3 - workman lodged a complaint before the opp. party no. 4 alleging therein that as per the settlement dated 23.9.1995, he was not provided with employment by the petitioner company. Upon such complaint being lodged, a notice was issued to the petitioner company by the opp. party no. 4 to be present in his office on 24.4.1996 for discussion. Ultimately on 8.8.1996,k it was settled that as a gesture or good-will and to rehabilitate the opp. party no. 3 - workman, the petitioner company will pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 11,000/-, even though the opp. party no. 3 - workman has no such claim. It was further agreed that the opp. party no. 3 - workman will not make any further claim before any court or any authority against the petitioner company and M/s. Varsha and Co. in future either for employment or for financial benefits. The settlement was reduced to writing and was signed by the opp. party no. 3 - workman and the representative of the petitioner company as well as the Assistant Labour Commissioner. The amount of Rs. 11,000/- was paid which was received by the opp. party no. 3 - workman on 8.8.1996. While the matter stood thus, the opp. party no. 3 - workman filed a representation before the opp. party no. 2 - Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), upon which the petitioner company was noticed on 3.4.1998. In response to the said notice, the petitioner company submitted its reply to the opp. party no. 2 by its letter dated 17.4.1998 stating in detail regarding the settlement dated 23.9.1995 and 8.8.1996. The petitioner company has pleaded that the opp. party no. 2 without going into the details of the reply of the petitioner company referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela for adjudication vide its order dated 6.8.1999 on the following points:-
"Whether the action of the management of M/s. U.B. Engineering for not providing employment to Sri Satyabadi Jena under the terms of settlement is justified If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"
2. Leaned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide notification dated 3.7.1998, the Central Government declared that the powers exercisable by it under the Act, so far as the Central Public Sector Undertakings and their subsidiaries are concerned, be exercisable also by the State Governments and the Steel Authority of India Ltd. was mentioned at serial no. 119 of the said notification. Since the petitioner company was working for the Rourkela Steel Plant (SAIL) and the Rourkela Steel Plant was the principal employer, so far as the workers working under the petitioner company is concerned, the Central Government, as per the notification under Annexure-10, was divested of all the powers with regard to conciliation or reference under section 10 of the Act and it was the State Government, who was empowered to make such reference. Thus, the opp. party no. 2 had no right or jurisdiction to refer the matter for adjudication. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner company that before making the reference , the opp. party no. 2 has only taken note of the settlement dated 23.9.1995 and has not taken into consideration the subsequent settlement arrived at on 8.8.1996 which would clearly go to show that the reference was made without due application of mind. Learned counsel further urged that the settlement between the petitioner company and the opp. party no. 3 - workman having not been arrived at before the opp. party no. 2 and there being no reference regarding the validity of the retrenchment of the opp. party no. 3 - workman, the said order of reference is illegal and is liable to be set aside.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opp. party no. 3 workman, inter alia, bringing it to the notice of this Court that I.D. Case No. 13 of 1999 (C) which was registered on the reference made by the Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela has been transferred in the meantime to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar and has been newly numbered as T.R.I.D. Case No. 58 of 2001. It has been further pleaded that due to the interim orders passed by this Court, the said I.D. Case No. 13 of 1999 (C) is not being proceeded with and the opp. party no. 3 - workman is facing hardship.
4. Considering the submissions made by the respective parties, the sole question that arises for determination in this writ petition is as to whether in view of the notification dated 3.7.1998 issued by the Central Government in its Ministry of Labour, the opp. party no. 2, i.e, Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) lost its jurisdiction to make the reference as has been done in the instant case. The notification dated 3.7.1998 as at Annexure-10 notifies as follows:-
"MINISTRY OF LABOUR.
NOTIFICATION.
New Delhi, the 3rd July, 1998. S.O. 556(E)- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of the 1947), the Central Government hereby directs that all the powers exercisable by it under that Act and the rules made thereunder shall in relation to all the Central Public Sector Undertakings and their subsidiaries, Corporations and autonomous bodies specified in schedule annexed to this Notification be exercisable also by the State Governments subject to the condition that the Central Government shall exercise all the powers under the said Act and Rules made thereunder as and when it considers necessary to do so". (Emphasis supplied)
5. No doubt, the Steel Authority of India Ltd. has been mentioned in serial no. 119 of the schedule of the said notification. But, a plain reading of the notification shows that the Central Government directed by the said notification that all powers exercisable by it under the Act and the rules framed thereunder in relation to all Central Public Sector Undertakings and their subsidiaries etc. as per the schedule to the notification can be exercised also by the State Governments subject to the condition that the Central shall exercise all the powers under the said Act and the Rules as and when it considers necessary to do so. In view of the above position, no fault can be found with the opp. party no. 2 in making the reference in the instant case. (Emphasis supplied)
6. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner company that while making the reference as at Annexure-8, the concerned authority of the Central Government has not applied its mind to the settlement dated 8.8.1996 as at Annexure- 4, this Court observes that it cannot be said from Annexure-8 (reference) that the concerned authority has not applied its mind to the said settlement dated 8.8.1996 before making the reference as it is not necessary under law to mention the history of the case in an order of reference. The reference as quoted above, indicates that the opp. party no. 3 - workman has raised the dispute that he was not provided with employment as per the terms of the settlement. Hence, the legality or validity of the subsequent settlement dated 8.8.1996 is a subject-matter to be dealt with by the Tribunal while answering the reference. The reference, ipso facto, cannot be held to be contrary to law on the ground of unreasonableness.
7. This Court, therefore, finds no reason to interfere in the matter. However, as the matter is now pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in T.R.I.D. Case No. 58 of 2001 and has not been proceed with due to the interim orders passed by this Court, it is directed that the Tribunal shall take expeditious steps to dispose of the said case by taking into consideration all the materials brought before it within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. The interim order stands vacated.