M.P. State Handloom Weavers Co-operative Federation Ltd. Vs. Shankarlal Gupta and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- indian penal code, 1890.sections 307 & 324: [lokeshwar singh panta & b.sudershan reddy,jj] assault proof - appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - no evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - however opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury held, appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under section 324 of i.p.c., sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him - (5) if, on a consideration of the report referred to in sub-section (4), the appropriate government is satisfied that there is a case for reference to a board, labour court, tribunal or national tribunal, it may make such reference.orders.k. dubey, j.1. by this petition under articles 226/227 of the constitution of india, the petitioner employer has prayed for quashment of the order dated october 7, 1994 (annexure p 3) passed by the respondent no. 2 deputy labour commissioner directing the petitioner to maintain status quo ante till the conclusion of the conciliation proceedings concerning the industrial dispute of the transfer of respondent no. 1 from jabalpur to gwalior vide order dated september 30, 1994.2. shri d. k. dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the conciliation officer has no power under section 12 of the industrial disputes act, 1947 (for short 'the act') to pass an order of injunction or stay. the jurisdiction vests in the tribunal or the labour court when on report of no settlement the industrial dispute is referred for adjudication.3. shri r. k.. gupta, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it was not an order but was merely an advice under section 12(2) of the act, it is for the petitioner-employer to follow or not.4. the conciliation officer has passed the order during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings on an industrial dispute being raised relating to the transfer of the workman by the petitioner-employer ceased in conciliation proceeding under section 12 of the act which reads thus ;'12. duties of conciliation cheers.-(1) where an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, the conciliation officer may, or where the dispute relates to a public utility service and a notice under section 22 has been given shall, hold conciliation proceedings in the prescribed manner. (2) the conciliation officer shall, for the purpose of bringing about a settlement of the dispute, without delay investigate the dispute and all matters affecting the merits and the right settlement thereof and may do all such things as he thinks fit for the purpose of inducing the parties to come to a fair and amicable settlement of the dispute. (3) if a settlement of the dispute or of any of the matters in dispute is arrived at in the course of the conciliation proceedings, the conciliation officer shall send a report thereof to the appropriate government or an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate government together with a memorandum of the settlement signed by the parties to the dispute. (4) if no such settlement is arrived at, the conciliation officer shall, as soon as practicable after the close of the investigation, send to the appropriate government a full report setting forth the steps taken by him for ascertaining the facts and circumstances relating to the dispute and for bringing about a settlement thereof, together with a full statement of such facts and circumstances, and the reasons on account of which, in his opinion, a settlement could be arrived at. (5) if, on a consideration of the report referred to in sub-section (4), the appropriate government is satisfied that there is a case for reference to a board, labour court, tribunal or national tribunal, it may make such reference. where the appropriate government does not make such a reference it shall record and communicate to the parties concerned its reasons therefor : (6) a report under this section shall be submittedwithin fourteen days of the commencement of theconciliation proceedings or within such shorterperiod as may be fixed by the appropriate government: provided that, subject to the approval of the conciliation officer, the time for the submission of the report may be extended by such period as may be agreed upon in writing by all the parties to the dispute.' 5. a bare reading of the section shows that jurisdiction of the conciliation officer under section 12 is based upon the existence or apprehension of an industrial dispute. on an industrial dispute, the proceedings are initiated. section 12(1) speaks of an industrial dispute relating to public utility service. section 12(2) requires the conciliation officer to investigate the dispute without delay with the object of bringing about settlement, and during investigation he may examine all matters affecting the merits and the right settlement of the dispute and do all such things as he thinks fit for the purpose of inducing the parties to arrive at a fair and amicable settlement. the duty is only to mediate between the parties and to an effort at conciliation so as to persuade them to settle the dispute between themselves. if the conciliation officer succeeds in his mediation, he is to make a report under section 12(3) of the act of; the settlement together with the memorandum of settlement signed by the parties to the dispute and send it to the appropriate government or an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate government. if efforts in conciliation do not succeed, he has to send a full report of no settlement under section 12(4) of the act setting forth the steps taken by him for ascertaining the facts and circumstances relating to the dispute and for bringing about a settlement thereof together with a full statement of such facts and circumstances, and the reasons on account of which, in his opinion, a settlement could be arrived at. section 12(5) deals with the power of appropriate government on consideration of the report and on satisfaction to make a reference or not for adjudication of the dispute to a board, labour court, tribunal or national tribunal. section 12(6) of the act speaks of sending of the report in the manner and period prescribed.6. from the above it is clear that the conciliation officer exercises his powers and duties in conciliation proceedings only to mediate for inducing the parties to the dispute to arrive at a fair and amicable settlement of the industrial dispute. the conciliation officer acting under section 12 of the act does not act in judicial or quasi judicial manner. therefore, he has no authority to make a decision relating to the industrial dispute or to pass any interim or final order during proceedings as defined under section 2(a) of the act, which are not judicial but administrative in nature. see sasa musa sugar works ltd. v. state of bihar and ors., air 1955 pat. 49. and royal calcutta golf club mazdoor union v. state of west bengal and ors. (1957-i-llj-218) (cal).7. from the above discussion it is clear that the conciliation officer exceeded its authority in exercise of administrative powers by passing the order directing the petitioner to maintain status quo ante till the conclusion of conciliation proceedings in the manner laid down under section 12 of the act.8. in the result the petition is allowed, the order dated october 7, 1994 (annexure p.3) passed by respondent no. 2 is quashed. no costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

S.K. Dubey, J.

1. By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner employer has prayed for quashment of the order dated October 7, 1994 (Annexure P 3) passed by the respondent No. 2 Deputy Labour Commissioner directing the petitioner to maintain status quo ante till the conclusion of the conciliation proceedings concerning the industrial dispute of the transfer of respondent No. 1 from Jabalpur to Gwalior vide order dated September 30, 1994.

2. Shri D. K. Dixit, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Conciliation Officer has no power under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') to pass an order of injunction or stay. The jurisdiction vests in the Tribunal or the Labour Court when on report of no settlement the industrial dispute is referred for adjudication.

3. Shri R. K.. Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that it was not an order but was merely an advice under Section 12(2) of the Act, it is for the petitioner-employer to follow or not.

4. The Conciliation Officer has passed the order during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings on an industrial dispute being raised relating to the transfer of the workman by the petitioner-employer ceased in conciliation proceeding under Section 12 of the Act which reads thus ;

'12. Duties of Conciliation Cheers.-(1) Where an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, the conciliation officer may, or where the dispute relates to a public utility service and a notice under section 22 has been given shall, hold conciliation proceedings in the prescribed manner.

(2) The Conciliation Officer shall, for the purpose of bringing about a settlement of the dispute, without delay investigate the dispute and all matters affecting the merits and the right settlement thereof and may do all such things as he thinks fit for the purpose of inducing the parties to come to a fair and amicable settlement of the dispute.

(3) If a settlement of the dispute or of any of the matters in dispute is arrived at in the course of the conciliation proceedings, the Conciliation Officer shall send a report thereof to the appropriate Government or an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government together with a Memorandum of the Settlement signed by the parties to the dispute.

(4) If no such settlement is arrived at, the Conciliation Officer shall, as soon as practicable after the close of the investigation, send to the appropriate Government a full report setting forth the steps taken by him for ascertaining the facts and circumstances relating to the dispute and for bringing about a settlement thereof, together with a full statement of such facts and circumstances, and the reasons on account of which, in his opinion, a settlement could be arrived at.

(5) If, on a consideration of the report referred to in Sub-section (4), the appropriate Government is satisfied that there is a case for reference to a Board, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, it may make such reference. Where the appropriate Government does not make such a reference it shall record and communicate to the parties concerned its reasons therefor :

(6) A report under this section shall be submittedwithin fourteen days of the commencement of theconciliation proceedings or within such shorterperiod as may be fixed by the appropriate Government: Provided that, subject to the approval of the Conciliation Officer, the time for the submission of the report may be extended by such period as may be agreed upon in writing by all the parties to the dispute.'

5. A bare reading of the section shows that jurisdiction of the Conciliation Officer under Section 12 is based upon the existence or apprehension of an industrial dispute. On an industrial dispute, the proceedings are initiated. Section 12(1) speaks of an industrial dispute relating to public utility service. Section 12(2) requires the Conciliation Officer to investigate the dispute without delay with the object of bringing about settlement, and during investigation he may examine all matters affecting the merits and the right settlement of the dispute and do all such things as he thinks fit for the purpose of inducing the parties to arrive at a fair and amicable settlement. The duty is only to mediate between the parties and to an effort at conciliation so as to persuade them to settle the dispute between themselves. If the Conciliation Officer succeeds in his mediation, he is to make a report under Section 12(3) of the Act of; the settlement together with the Memorandum of Settlement signed by the parties to the dispute and send it to the appropriate Government or an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government. If efforts in conciliation do not succeed, he has to send a full report of no settlement under Section 12(4) of the Act setting forth the steps taken by him for ascertaining the facts and circumstances relating to the dispute and for bringing about a settlement thereof together with a full statement of such facts and circumstances, and the reasons on account of which, in his opinion, a settlement could be arrived at. Section 12(5) deals with the power of appropriate Government on consideration of the report and on satisfaction to make a reference or not for adjudication of the dispute to a Board, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal. Section 12(6) of the Act speaks of sending of the report in the manner and period prescribed.

6. From the above it is clear that the Conciliation Officer exercises his powers and duties in conciliation proceedings only to mediate for inducing the parties to the dispute to arrive at a fair and amicable settlement of the industrial dispute. The Conciliation Officer acting under Section 12 of the Act does not act in judicial or quasi judicial manner. Therefore, he has no authority to make a decision relating to the industrial dispute or to pass any interim or final order during proceedings as defined under Section 2(a) of the Act, which are not judicial but administrative in nature. See Sasa Musa Sugar Works Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors., AIR 1955 Pat. 49. and Royal Calcutta Golf Club Mazdoor Union v. State of West Bengal and Ors. (1957-I-LLJ-218) (Cal).

7. From the above discussion it is clear that the Conciliation Officer exceeded its authority in exercise of administrative powers by passing the order directing the Petitioner to maintain status quo ante till the conclusion of conciliation proceedings in the manner laid down under Section 12 of the Act.

8. In the result the petition is allowed, the order dated October 7, 1994 (Annexure P.3) passed by respondent No. 2 is quashed. No costs.