AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Markandey Katju, C.J.—This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 25.11.2004.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
The learned single Judge has only directed that the conciliation proceedings be completed within twelve weeks. We cannot see what objection can the appellant have to such a direction. In fact, it is an innocuous direction which does not affect the rights of the parties.
It must be understood that there is a difference between conciliation and adjudication. In conciliation proceedings no rights are decided and no binding order can be passed by the conciliation officer. The purpose of conciliation is to try to bring the parties to an amicable settlement by persuasion, reasoning, etc. without the need to go in for adjudication. It may be mentioned that the duty of the conciliation officer is only to mediate and try to promote a settlement of the industrial dispute without going to Court. The functions of the conciliation officer are not judicial or quasi-judicial but are only administrative in nature. On the other hand, when an adjudication is done by the Labour Court or the Tribunal, the award is binding on the parties.
Since, the conciliation proceedings do not affect the rights of the parties, we cannot see what objection the Management could possibly have to the direction given by the learned single Judge.
Learned counsel for the appellant however submitted that there was no industrial dispute and hence there could not be any conciliation or adjudication. All these matters can be raised before the conciliation officer and they will be considered by the conciliation officer. With this observation, the writ appeal is dismissed. Consequently, W.A.M.P. No. 780 of 2005 for stay is also dismissed.