Shantaveerayya vs The Principal Secretary

B.S. Patil, J.—Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 13.06.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent-Commissioner, Department of Labour (for short, ''the Commissioner''). By the impugned order, the Commissioner has returned the conciliation failure report to the Conciliation Officer/Deputy Labour Officer stating that the Labour Officer had to reconsider the matter and submit appropriate report afresh.

Petitioner has been working as a conductor under the 3rd respondent-North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation. He was dismissed from service by order dated 29.07.1992. Petitioner raised an industrial dispute. Pursuant whereof, he was reinstated into service on 28.04.1994 by way of interim relief. However, by award dated 14.02.1996, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner into service with 75% of the backwages, but denying continuity of service from 29.07.1992 to 24.07.1994. According to the petitioner, although he was taken back to service on 27.04.1994, he was paid only current wages from that period that is to say the minimum wages which was there for the cadre of conductor. It is his case that he is entitled for fixation of payscale. The request made by him in this regard for fixation of payscale was not considered. He also made a request to provide him an alternative employment because of the health reasons. This was also denied. His request to relieve him by accepting his resignation was also not accepted. However, he was transferred to Devadurga Depot. In this background, petitioner made a representation/demand dated 24.11.2011 for payment of arrears of wages and for refixation of payscale, keeping in mind the award passed by the Labour Court on 14.02.1996 in KID No. 5/1993.

The demand made by the petitioner was referred for conciliation. The Conciliation/Labour Officer submitted a failure report. The Commissioner, after examining the report submitted by the Conciliation/Labour Officer has passed the impugned order returning the failure report and referring the matter back to the Conciliation Officer.

As can be seen from the impugned order, the grounds on which the Commissioner virtually declined to refer the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication and has persuaded himself to send back the matter for Conciliation/Labour Officer are that the petitioner did not enclose the order imposing punishment by the Management; there was nothing in the representation submitted by the petitioner regarding any order passed and the delay, if any, in filing the representation; it was open for the workman to enforce the award passed by the Labour Court and that after lapse of nearly 16 years from the date of the award passed by the Labour Court on 14.02.1996, the petitioner-workman had submitted the representation raising the dispute.

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, none of these grounds have any relevance to the grievance made by the petitioner. The grievance made by the petitioner is that even after reinstatement as directed by the Labour Court, the Management continued to pay only the current wages and did not fix his payscale in the regular post. His further grievance was that he was not transferred from the post held by him, though he had made out sufficient grounds in that regard. It was also his case that the resignation submitted by him ought to have been accepted. The Conciliation/Labour Officer submitted a failure report as no settlement was reached. Therefore, the Commissioner ought to have examined the matter for reference to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute raised. Instead, he has referred the matter back to the Conciliation/Labour Officer on grounds which have no relevance to the grievance made by the petitioner. It has to be also noticed here that petitioner is not seeking to enforce the award passed by the Labour Court. On the other hand, he is taking support of the award passed by the Labour Court for fixation of his payscale.

Therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner suffers from patent illegality and is unsustainable in law. Hence, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. The Commissioner is directed to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 24.11.2011 vide Annexure-B and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.