Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Tata Marcopolo Motors Limited, is a registered company with a factory in Belur Industrial Area, Dharwad. Some of its employees are members of the first respondent trade union, Tata Marcopolo Kratikari Karmika Union. The union requested the petitioner to recognize certain of its office bearers as protected workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner did not recognize the proposed members, leading the union to approach the second respondent, the Deputy Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer, Belagavi Division. After hearing both parties, the second respondent passed an order dated 20/12/2022 recognizing the union's proposed office bearers as protected workmen. The petitioner challenged this order by filing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the order and dismiss the union's application. The High Court examined the impugned order and found that the Conciliation Officer had not adequately considered the petitioner's objections. The court noted that the order was cryptic and did not reflect any application of mind to the employer's contentions. The court held that the Conciliation Officer must act quasi-judicially and give reasons for his decision. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the second respondent for fresh consideration, directing that the petitioner be given a proper hearing and that a reasoned order be passed. The writ petition was allowed in part.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Protected Workmen - Recognition of Office Bearers - Section 33, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The employer objected to the union's proposal to recognize certain office bearers as protected workmen. The Conciliation Officer passed an order recognizing them without adequately considering the employer's objections. The High Court held that the Conciliation Officer must consider the employer's objections and cannot mechanically accept the union's proposal. The impugned order was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration. (Paras 1-5)
B) Industrial Law - Conciliation Officer - Powers and Duties - Section 33, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The Conciliation Officer, while adjudicating on protected workmen, must act quasi-judicially and give reasons for his decision. The order must reflect application of mind to the objections raised by the employer. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Deputy Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer had the jurisdiction to recognize certain office bearers of the trade union as protected workmen without considering the objections of the employer.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 20/12/2022 passed by the second respondent is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the second respondent for fresh consideration, who shall hear the petitioner and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Protected workmen
- Recognition of trade union office bearers
- Conciliation officer's jurisdiction
- Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Rule 61 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules
- 1957
Case Details
2023 LawText (KAR) (03) 5
WP No. 100208 of 2023 (L-RES)
S.N. Murthy, Senior Advocate for Sri. Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, Advocate for Petitioner; Sanjay Singhvi, Senior Advocate for Sri. Rajshekhar Burji, Advocate for R1; Shivaprabhu Hiremath, AGA for R2
Tata Marcopolo Motors Limited
The Tata Marcopolo Kratikari Karmika Union, The Deputy Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer, Belagavi Division
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer recognizing certain office bearers of a trade union as protected workmen.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 20/12/2022 passed by the second respondent and to dismiss the application filed by the first respondent.
Filing Reason
The petitioner, an employer, objected to the recognition of certain office bearers of the trade union as protected workmen, but the Conciliation Officer passed an order recognizing them without adequately considering the petitioner's objections.
Previous Decisions
The second respondent passed the impugned order dated 20/12/2022 recognizing the office bearers as protected workmen.
Issues
Whether the Conciliation Officer's order recognizing protected workmen was valid when it did not adequately consider the employer's objections.
Whether the Conciliation Officer has the jurisdiction to recognize protected workmen without a reasoned order.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without considering its objections and without application of mind.
The first respondent union supported the order, contending that the Conciliation Officer had heard both parties and passed a valid order.
Ratio Decidendi
The Conciliation Officer, while adjudicating on the recognition of protected workmen under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, must act quasi-judicially, consider the objections of the employer, and pass a reasoned order reflecting application of mind. A cryptic order without reasons is liable to be quashed.
Judgment Excerpts
The 2nd respondent after hearing the petitioner and the 1st respondent, has passed the impugned order dated 20/12/2022.
The impugned order does not reflect any application of mind to the objections raised by the petitioner.
Hence, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration.
Procedural History
The first respondent trade union requested the petitioner to recognize certain office bearers as protected workmen. The petitioner did not recognize them, so the union approached the second respondent (Deputy Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer). After hearing both parties, the second respondent passed an order on 20/12/2022 recognizing the office bearers as protected workmen. The petitioner challenged this order by filing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 33
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
