Omr Bagla Automotive Systems (India) Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Naresh H. Patil, J.—Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. The Petitioner challenges the impugned orders dated 1st April, 2010 and 5th April, 2010 passed by Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 2 initiated Conciliation Proceedings. The Respondent No. 2 claims to have issued preliminary notices to the Petitioner from the year 2009 onwards. On 22nd March, 2010 the Conciliation Officer, Aurangabad issued notice to the Petitioner stating therein that the Demands raised by the Respondent No. 3 Union, Except Demand No. 12, have been admitted in conciliation on 17th March, 2010. It was informed that Conciliation Proceedings would be held on 30th March, 2010 at 12.00 p.m. It is submitted on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 that the notices were served on the Petitioner. Reliance is placed on the outward register maintained by the Respondents.

It is the case of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that inspite of issuance of the notices, the Petitioner remained absent through out. By an order dated 5th April, 2010, the Conciliation Officer referred the dispute to the Industrial Court. This Reference is in question in this Petition.

Shri. Ghuge, learned Counsel appearing for Petitioner, placed reliance on the reported Judgment in the case of Associated Cement Staff Union v. State of Maharashtra and others. 2009 (122) FLR 140 (Bom.) : 2009 (1)CLR 1043. The learned Counsel submits that the Conciliation Proceedings would start after the same is admitted. In the facts of the present case, the Petitioner did not receive any notice from the Conciliation Officer. The matter was decided by the Conciliation Officer on the first date itself and the Reference was made. The Counsel submits that unreasonable view was adopted by the Respondent No. 2, who could have faxed out the notice to the Petitioner. There is no evidence of service of notice. The Counsel further submitted that the averments made by the Petitioner in Complaint (ULP) No. 48 of 2009 cannot be stretched so much to negate the rights of the Petitioner to receive appropriate notice of Conciliation Proceedings in accordance with law. The Counsel further submits that the record would show that the Conciliation Officer has not taken any pains to act in tune with the principles settled behind holding Conciliation Proceedings. The Reference is made mechanically.

Shri. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3 submits that the Petitioner is raising issues with mala fide intention and deliberately, to delay the proceedings. The Petitioner company adopted non-co-operational attitude. Inspite of the receipt of notices, the Petitioner remained absent before the Conciliation Officer. A reference was made to averments made by the Petitioner in the Complaint (ULP) No. 48 of 2009, in support of the submissions of the learned counsel. The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3, placed reliance on the reported Judgment in the case of Transport Corporation of India v. Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi Transport and General Kamgar Union 2003 (96) FLR 653 , and the reported Judgment in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd., . The learned Counsel submitted that considering the facts of the case, the Conciliation Officer rightly referred the Reference to the Industrial Tribunal.

Shri. Kadam, the learned A.G.P. submits that notices were sent by the office of the Respondent No. 2. The said notices were served on the Petitioner and inspite of the same, the Petitioner remained absent. Considering the merits of the matter, Reference was rightly made.

We have considered the submissions advanced, perused the documents placed on record and the Judgments cited before us. The Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Associated Cement Staff Union v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2009 (122) FLR 140 (Bom.) : 2009 (1)CLR 1043 has observed, that the so called preparatory meeting or initial meeting before initiation of conciliation proceedings are strictly not governed by the provision of section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Division Bench further observed, that the Conciliation Officer is a creature of Statute and being a creature of Statute, his jurisdiction and or powers are limited to those conferred upon him by the Statute.

We find that after admission of the Conciliation Proceedings before the Conciliation Officer, the issue would be service of notice on the Petitioner. We find that Conciliation Officer could have taken little more effort to serve the Petitioner, by other available modes, so that proper record was maintained in respect of the service of the notice on the Petitioner. Maintaining outward register in the manner in which it has been shown, is not satisfying step. The. efforts to conciliate between the parties, was necessary -to be taken by the Conciliation Officer. Considering all these aspects of the matter, we are convinced to quash and set aside the impugned orders. The impugned orders dated 1st April, 2010 and 5th April, 2010 are quashed and set aside. The Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 shall remain present before the Respondent No. 2 on 21st March, 2011 at 11.00 a.m. The Conciliation Proceedings would start from 21st March, 2011. We direct the Respondent No. 2 to pass appropriate orders on the application filed by the Respondent No. 3 union, within FOUR WEEKS from 21st March, 2011, on its own merits.

Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above.