M/s. Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. vs Commissioner of Labour

Mr. B.S. Patil, J.—Order dated 21.11.2011 passed by the Labour Commissioner, thereby according permission to 3rd respondent-Factory Workers� Union to initiate proceedings against petitioner-M/s. Ugar Sugar Works Limited for allegedly violating the condition of settlement arrived at between 3rd respondent-Union and the petitioner factory, by exercising powers under Sections 34 and 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has been called in question in this writ petition.

Main ground urged by learned counsel for petitioner appearing for the sugar factory is that although the management of petitioner-factory had sought for some reasonable time to submit its reply to the notice issued by the Labour Commissioner citing agitation of the farmers that was going on resulting in paralysation of the work of the sugar factory and consequent difficulties faced by it in submitting proper reply to the show cause notice issued, the Labour Commissioner without providing opportunity to the management to submit their reply proceeded to pass the impugned order granting permission to the workers�-union to institute criminal case against the petitioner.

Facts involved in the case disclose that a settlement had been arrived at between petitioner-management and 3rd respondent workers� union on 31.01.2002. One of the terms of the said settlement required the management to extend appointment on compassionate ground to the defendants of the deceased, in case workman died in harness while in service of the factory or suffered paralysis during his tenure as a workman. The workers� union had made a request to appoint 2nd respondent herein who is son of the deceased employee on compassionate ground in terms of the settlement. As the management did not comply with the request, 3rd respondent workers� union approached the Labour Commissioner seeking permission to prosecute the management for violating the terms of settlement. Commissioner issued notice to petitioner-management to comply with the directions and submit compliance within 15 days. In response, petitioner sought for more time to submit reply. Even after the time was extended, one more reply was submitted by the management requesting for further extension of time by 15 days, citing agitation of the farmers and difficulties to secure records for submitting proper reply. Consequently, the impugned order came to be passed.

It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that the settlement arrived at on 31.01.2002 was in force only upto 30.03.2005 and in the place of the earlier settlement another settlement was entered into afresh during 2006; the settlement of 2006 did not contain similar requirements of granting appointment on compassionate grounds; if only an opportunity had been given to petitioner they would hove satisfied the Labour Commissioner with regard to the same; but, without providing fair and reasonable opportunity, impugned order has been passed permitting prosecution of petitioner.

Learned AGA supports the order stating that reasonable opportunity had been indeed given by way of extension. However, when petitioner did not submit reply reporting compliance, the impugned order has been passed. The other respondents have also supported the order.

In the light of the respective submission, on careful consideration of entire material on record, I am of the view that the Labour Commissioner ought to have granted time as requested by the petitioner-management particularly when it had brought to the notice of the Labour Commissioner that due to farmers agitation the factory found it difficult to prepare the reply by tracing necessary documents. The contention urged by petitioner that settlement dated 31.01.2002 with regard to the clause providing for compassionate appointment was not in force during the relevant period as another settlement had been entered into in the year 2006 in substitution of the earlier one, cannot be gone into in this proceedings. It is for the petitioner to take up proper contention by filing reply.

Accordingly, the order under challenge is set aside. Petitioner is granted two weeks� time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to file its reply before the Labour Commissioner, whereupon the Labour Commissioner shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, expeditiously.