Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd., challenged the order dated 3/4/2006 passed by the Industrial Court/Tribunal, Nagpur in Reference No.(IT) 1 of 2006 and the order dated 1/2/2006 issued by the Additional Labour Commissioner under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referring the dispute raised by respondent No.2 Trade Union to the Industrial Tribunal. The reference order merely stated 'Following 19 employees should be made permanent' and listed the names. The employer objected that the reference was invalid for not containing the nature of dispute or facts and circumstances. The Industrial Tribunal rejected the employer's application for return of reference. The High Court held that the order of reference under Section 12(5) need not contain detailed facts; it is sufficient if the dispute is identifiable. The reference clearly indicated the demand for permanency of 19 employees, which was identifiable. The court also noted that the Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide incidental matters including interim relief. The writ petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 12(5) - Reference of Dispute - Sufficiency of Contents - The order of reference need not contain detailed facts or circumstances; it is sufficient if the dispute referred is identifiable. The reference stating 'Following 19 employees should be made permanent' along with names is valid and not liable to be returned for lack of particulars. (Paras 2-5)
B) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10(1) - Reference to Tribunal - Jurisdiction - The Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide all incidental matters including interim relief pending adjudication of the reference. The rejection of the employer's application for return of reference was proper. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of reference under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is invalid for not containing the nature of dispute or facts and circumstances leading to the reference, and whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in rejecting the employer's application for return of reference.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Reference under Section 12(5) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 need not contain detailed facts or circumstances
- it is sufficient if the dispute is identifiable
- Validity of reference cannot be challenged on ground of lack of particulars in the order of reference
- Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide incidental matters including interim relief
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (12) 94
Writ Petition No. 4834 of 2006
Mr. P.C. Marpakwar for Petitioner, Learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent nos.1,3 & 4, Mr. S.D. Thakur for Respondent no.2
M/s. Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.
Additional Labour Commissioner and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of reference under Section 12(5) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the order of Industrial Tribunal rejecting the employer's application for return of reference.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner employer sought quashing of the reference order and the order rejecting return of reference.
Filing Reason
The employer contended that the reference order was invalid for not containing the nature of dispute or facts and circumstances.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Tribunal rejected the employer's application for return of reference on 3/4/2006.
Issues
Whether the order of reference under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is invalid for not containing the nature of dispute or facts and circumstances leading to the reference.
Whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in rejecting the employer's application for return of reference.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the reference order was vague and did not disclose the nature of dispute, hence invalid.
Respondent Trade Union argued that the reference was valid as it clearly stated the demand for permanency of 19 employees.
Ratio Decidendi
An order of reference under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 need not contain detailed facts or circumstances; it is sufficient if the dispute referred is identifiable. The reference stating 'Following 19 employees should be made permanent' is valid and not liable to be returned for lack of particulars.
Judgment Excerpts
The order of reference dated 1/2/2006 after mentioning the formal facts in schedule states the dispute referred as under: 'Schedule. Following 19 employees should be made permanent.'
The Industrial Tribunal has rejected their prayer for return of reference on 3rd April 2006 which in fact is a common interim award/order passed below exhibit 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14 by it.
Procedural History
The Additional Labour Commissioner made a reference under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 1/2/2006 to the Industrial Tribunal. The Trade Union filed a statement of claim and interim relief applications. The employer filed an application for return of reference on 29/3/2006. The Industrial Tribunal rejected the application on 3/4/2006. The employer filed the present writ petition challenging both orders.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 12(5), 10(1)
