AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J.—This writ petition has been instituted essentially calling in question the legality and validity of an order of reference made by the 2nd respondent-Additional Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad through his proceedings No. L1/1565/2008, dated 24.7.2009, exercising the power delegated in his favour by the State Government in terms of Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referring certain disputes for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court-I, Hyderabad. Before proceeding further, I consider it appropriate to extract the following passage from the order of reference made by the 2nd respondent, which reads:
Whereas, the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy Zone, Hyderabad, is of the opinion that the Industrial Dispute exists between the Management of M/s. Ushakiran Movies Limited, Ramoji Film City, Ranga Reddy District and Ramoji film City (Ushakiran Movies Limited) Staff and Workers Union (Regd. No. A-4406), in respect of the matters specified in the Annexure enclosed to this order.
And whereas, in the opinion of the Addl. Commissioner of Labour, A.P., Hyderabad, it is necessary to refer the said dispute for adjudication....
On 28.8.2009 while entertaining this writ petition an interim suspension of the operation of the above proceedings has been granted by this Court. Two vacate applications i.e. WVMP. No. 4113 of 2009 and WVMP. No. 3318 of 2010 have been moved, one by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein and the other by the 5th respondent-Trade Union.
I have heard Sri. C.R. Sridharan, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Labour for respondents 1 to 3 and Ms. Vasudha Nagaraj, learned Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent-Trade Union. With their consent, I have taken up the task of disposing of the writ petition itself as a short question of law can decide the issue.
In terms of Section 39 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which empowered delegation of powers exercisable by appropriate Government, the 1st respondent-State Government passed orders through their G.O.Ms. No. 63, Labour Employment Training and Factories (Lab-I) Department, dated 2.8.2008 directing that the powers exercisable by the said State Government under Sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 10, Sub-section (1) of Section 33C and Sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 shall also be exercisable by the Commissioner of Labour, Additional Commissioner of Labour and Joint Commissioner of Labour in their respective jurisdictions as detailed in Annexures I and II of the said order. Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a very important provision of law, which deals with the matters concerning reference to be made to competent courts for resolution of industrial disputes that are existing between the parties. It seldom requires to note the significance of timely determination and adjudication of the industrial disputes. The significance of the resolution of industrial disputes in time will produce the salutary affect of restoring the industrial peace and tranquillity and promote growth and industrial productivity. It is hardly in dispute that industrial growth and productivity will have a direct impact upon the economy of the State and its planning. Therefore, Section 10 has conferred upon appropriate Governments, wherever they are of the opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may, at any time, by an order in writing refer such dispute to a Board for promoting settlement thereof, or to a court for inquiry, or to a Labour Court in case the disputes relate to matters relating to Schedule II for adjudication, or to a Tribunal in case the disputes concerning anything about matters relating to Schedules II and III of Industrial Disputes Act for a similar adjudication.
As was noticed supra in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 39 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which enables the delegation of powers exercisable by the appropriate Government, the State of Andhra Pradesh has delegated the said powers in favour of Commissioner of Labour, Additional Commissioner of Labour and Joint Commissioner of Labour, that for there is no difficulty.
What the Additional Commissioner of Labour did in this case was not a mere reference of an industrial dispute, which exists for adjudication. Before doing so, it is essential for such an Officer to make up his mind about the existence of such a dispute. It requires consideration and application of mind independently to the factors, which can ultimately help him to make up his mind about the existence or apprehension of likely industrial dispute. But, a mere look at the order of reference in the instant case discloses the fatal error committed by the Additional Commissioner of Labour. The very opening sentence of the reference order reads as under:
Whereas, the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy Zone, Hyderabad, is of the opinion that the Industrial Dispute exists between the Management of M/s. Ushakiran Movies Limited, Ramoji Film City, Ranga Reddy District and Ramoji film City (Ushakiran Movies Limited) Staff and Workers Union (Regd. No. A-4406), in respect of the matters specified in the Annexure enclosed to this order.
It is the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Rangareddy zone, Hyderabad who had occasion to consider the entire matter in its proper perspective and came to a conclusion about the existence of industrial disputes in respect of certain matters. It is, therefore, explicitly made clear that it is the Joint Commissioner of Labour who upon application of his mind had arrived at the opinion about the existence of an industrial dispute. It is not that the Joint Commissioner of Labour who made the reference in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 10, but that power of making a reference has been exercised by the Additional Commissioner of Labour. The Additional Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad is an independent and altogether different agency from that of the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Rangareddy zone, Hyderabad. There is no dispute on this count from any quarter in this case. If the Additional Commissioner of Labour is an independent agency from that of the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Rangareddy zone, Hyderabad it pre-supposes that the Additional Commissioner of Labour, being an independent agency in whose favour the power of delegation has been accorded by the State Government through their orders contained in G.O.Ms. No. 63, Labour Employment Training and Factories (Lab-I) Department, dated 2.8.2008, he should have examined the matter independently and on his own. In other words, if the Additional Commissioner of Labour has independently applied his mind and arrived at an opinion about the existence of an industrial dispute that would be a different matter. Similarly, if the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Rangareddy zone, Hyderabad considers that the industrial disputes which are in existence require adjudication he could have himself made a reference for adjudication, he also being delegated with similar powers by the State Government. But, instead it is the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Rangareddy zone, Hyderabad who independently studied the matter from the proper perspective for making up his mind about the existence or likelihood of the existence of an industrial dispute. Whereas based upon such an opinion of the Joint Commissioner the Additional Commissioner makes the reference. There is a clear mis-match between the two, which simply reduces the entire exercise to a mere mechanical affair. One particular Officer applies his mind to form an opinion about the existence of an industrial dispute between the parties while another Officer without any such application of mind mechanically makes a reference. It is sine qua non that for a reference to be made in terms of Sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 it is the competent authority who should make up his mind about the existence or apprehension of a likelihood of an industrial dispute. Based upon such opinion the reference follows. In the instant case, the Additional Commissioner of Labour who made the reference has simply not formed any such opinion on his own. He merely subscribed to the opinion already formed by the Joint Commissioner of Labour. In other words, he borrowed the opinion of the Joint Commissioner and mechanically based thereon made the reference. It is, therefore, a case of lack of independent replication of mind on the part of the Additional Commissioner of Labour about the existence of an industrial dispute warranting its reference under Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and consequently the order dated 24-7-2009 deserves to be set at naught. Application of mind on the part of the Officer is the pre-requisite for making a reference. That is missing here. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set at naught.
However, quashing of the order-dated 24.7.2009 of the Additional Commissioner of Labour does not reflect any opinion of this Court about non-existence of any such industrial dispute between the parties. Equally it shall also be construed that the competent authority to make a reference should not or cannot independently study the matter afresh. It is, therefore, made clear to the competent authorities including the State Government that it is absolutely open to them to independently examine about the existence of any such industrial dispute between the parties warranting its reference to be made for adjudication.
I must also record the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. C.R. Sridharan that the rest of the contentions that have been canvassed in the writ petition including the validity of exercise of application indulged in by the State Government by issuing orders through their G.O.Ms. No. 63, Labour Employment Training and Factories (Lab-I) Department, dated 2.8.2008 is not pressed for the present in view of the fatality committed by the Additional Commissioner of Labour. I make it clear that I have not pronounced any opinion on any of those contentions in as much as they are not required as of now for me to pronounce any opinion thereon.
The writ petition is therefore allowed to the extent of quashing the order-dated 24.7.2009 passed by 2nd respondent-Additional Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad with liberty to the parties to work out the remedies available to them under law.