Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Bajaj Auto Limited, a manufacturer of two-wheelers and three-wheelers at Waluj, Aurangabad, challenged an order of reference dated 21 March 2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Aurangabad, under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The reference was made on a demand raised by respondent No.3, Bhartiya Kamgar Kranti Sanghatna, on behalf of temporary workers who had been engaged by the company on fixed-term contracts 12 to 18 years earlier. The petitioner contended that the workers were employed for short periods to meet market exigencies, never completed 240 days of continuous service, and their employment ended automatically by efflux of time. After their last engagement, the workers remained silent for many years and did not raise any industrial dispute until after the Supreme Court delivered a judgment on 17 December 2003 concerning another batch of temporary workers. The petitioner argued that the reference was vitiated by gross and unexplained delay, that the union was not a recognised union and did not represent the majority of workers, and that the Deputy Commissioner failed to apply his mind as directed in two earlier rounds of writ petitions (Writ Petition No.4520 of 2005 and Writ Petition No.7269 of 2005) where previous reference orders had been quashed and remanded for fresh consideration. The petitioner further contended that the dispute should have been referred to the Labour Court and not the Industrial Tribunal, and that it would be impossible to defend the claims after such a long passage of time when records and officers were no longer available. Reliance was placed on decisions of the Supreme Court in M/s Shalimar Works Limited v. Their Workmen, AIR 1959 SC 1271; Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty, 2000 I LLJ 561; Assistant Executive Engineer, Karnataka v. Sri Shivalinga, 2002 I CLR 321; and Secretary, Indian Tea Association v. Ajit Kumar Barat, 2000 I CLR 625, to argue that a stale dispute cannot be referred. The judgment excerpt provided does not contain the court's analysis or final decision.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of reference dated 21 March 2006 under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was valid given the abnormal delay of 12 to 18 years in raising the dispute, the fact that the referring union was not a recognised union, and whether the Deputy Commissioner of Labour had applied his mind as directed by earlier High Court orders
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (12) 15
Writ Petition No.4703 of 2006
Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde
J.P. Cama, Senior Advocate with R.V. Ghuge for petitioner; K.B. Choudhari, Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2; T.K. Prabhakaran with S.B. Rakebhosale for respondent 3
State of Maharashtra, Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Aurangabad, Bhartiya Kamgar Kranti Sanghatna
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of reference dated 21 March 2006 made by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Aurangabad, under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referring an alleged industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for striking down the impugned order of reference.
Filing Reason
Petitioner contended that the reference was made on a demand raised by a non-recognised union after an abnormal delay of 12 to 18 years from the last employment of temporary workers, that the dispute was stale, and that the Deputy Commissioner did not properly apply his mind as directed by earlier High Court orders.
Previous Decisions
Two earlier writ petitions (No.4520 of 2005 and No.7269 of 2005) were filed by the petitioner challenging earlier orders of reference. Both were quashed and remanded by the High Court with directions to the Deputy Commissioner to reconsider the matter afresh and to briefly reflect the application of mind on merits. After the second remand, the Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned order on 21 March 2006.
Issues
Whether the order of reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act was valid despite a delay of 12 to 18 years in raising the dispute.
Whether a non-recognised union can raise an industrial dispute on behalf of workers.
Whether the Deputy Commissioner of Labour applied his mind as directed by the High Court in earlier remand orders.
Whether the reference should have been made to the Labour Court instead of the Industrial Tribunal.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the reference was vitiated by inordinate and unexplained delay of 12 to 18 years, rendering the dispute stale; the union was not recognised and did not represent the majority of workers; the Deputy Commissioner failed to apply his mind and passed a mechanical order; the reference should have been to the Labour Court and not the Industrial Tribunal; and the employer-employee relationship was disputed as the workers were temporary and their appointments ended by efflux of time.
Respondents contended that the reference was valid as an industrial dispute existed or was apprehended, and that the government was entitled to refer it for adjudication.
Judgment Excerpts
The appointments of the workers were made by the petitioner to meet the increase in demand arising out of market exigencies. This appointment was initially for a period of 7 months.
After the last employment of the members of the third respondent, all such temporaries kept silent for several years without raising any industrial dispute.
The learned Senior Counsel specifically contended that the reference was made on demand of respondent No.3 which is neither a recognised union of the petitioner nor it represents the majority of the workers of the petitioner - Company.
It was clarified that no detailed reasoned order was expected from the Deputy Commissioner of Labour but application of his mind and liveliness to issues raised by the parties should be briefly reflected on merits in the order.
Procedural History
The respondent No.3 union raised a demand on 27 January 2004 on behalf of temporary workers. The petitioner rejected the demand. Conciliation proceedings were held before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, who made an order of reference on 27 April 2005. The petitioner challenged that order in Writ Petition No.4520 of 2005, which was quashed and remanded on 11 July 2005 with directions to reconsider afresh. After reconsideration, a second reference order was passed on 22 August 2005, which was again challenged in Writ Petition No.7269 of 2005. That petition was allowed on 23 February 2006, with further directions to the Deputy Commissioner to briefly reflect application of mind on merits. The impugned order was passed on 21 March 2006, leading to the present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 2(k), Section 10, Section 10(1), Section 10(2), Second Schedule Item 3
- Constitution of India: Article 226
