AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Saron, J.—This petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of direction to amend the reference order dated 5.3.2001 passed by the State Government for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. The said order regard as under:-
"Whereas the undersigned is of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists between Godrej-GE Employees Union, House No. 1355, SAS Nagar, Mohali and M/s Godrej Appliances Limited, Mohali, A-40, Phase 8-A, SAS Nagar, Mohali regarding the matters herein after appearing. And whereas the undersigned considers desirable to refer the dispute for adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 2A and Section 10(1) Sub-section (1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Punjab Government Notification No. S.O./66/CA/14/47 S. 39/88. dated 19.9.1988, the undersigned hereby refers to the Industrial Tribuna, Punjab Chandigarh, the matter specified below or adjudication and to give award within six months:-
Whether the workmen are justified in not performing duties according to the instructions of the management w.e.f. 5/1/2001, if not, then what should be the directions?
Whether the lock-out by the management from 22/1/2001 in respect of regular workers is justified, if not, then what directions should be given?
Whether the management is not justified in getting work done from temporary workmen in place of regular workers w.e.f. 6/1/2001, if yes, then what directions should be given?"
The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner is aggrieved against para 2 of the above said order inasmuch as the actual dispute between the parties was assumed. In fact, it is to be first seen whether there was a ''Lock Out'' on the part of the management before the consequential question of a ''Lock Out'' by the management is referred to the Industrial Tribunal.
The learned counsel for the respondent/State on instructions from Sh. Jacob Pratap, Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Mohali, who has filed affidavit in this case on behalf of the State, has stated that the said reference in para 2 above was made on the assumption that the management did not allow the workmen to join their duties after 21.1.2001. He further states that the State government is willing to reconsider the matter and for this purpose the Labour Commissioner would also hear both the parties and pass appropriate order making a reference with regard to the actual dispute between the parties in relation to para 2 of the order dated 5.3.2001.
Sh. Sarjit Singh learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent-workmen, however, contends that the management in fact is not allowing the workers to perform their duties and that therefore there is a ''Lock Out'' on its part. In these circumstances the reference made is in order.
I have considered the respective submissions. The stand of the management is that there is no ''Lock Out''. Besides, the stand of the State is that the reference as indicated in para 2 of the order dated 5.3.2001 was made on assumptions as the management was not permitting the workers to perform their duties.
In my view reference to the Industrial Tribunal is to be made after considering the matter on the basis of relevant material on record of the case. However, the State itself is willing to reconsider the matter and that too after hearing both the parties, therefore, in my view, no prejudice would be caused to either side. This is more so when in administrative decisions opportunity of hearing is not always essential.
Accordingly, the Labour Commissioner, who is competent authority, would reconsider the matter in relation to para 2 of the order dated 5.3.2001 in the light of the statement given by the learned counsel appearing for the State. The parties shall appear before the Labour Commissioner on 7.3.2003 and he shall hear the parties and pass appropriate orders within one month thereafter. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Copy be given dasti.