THE MANAGEMENT OF RECKITT & BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD. versus UNITED LABOUR FEDERATION

High Court of Madras

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

The Management of Reckitt & Benckiser (India) Ltd. v. United Labour Federation - W.A.No.432 of 2005 [2005] RD-TN 183 (1 March 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 01/03/2005

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.MARKANDEY KATJU, CHIEF JUSTICE and

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN

W.A.No.432 of 2005

and

W.A.M.P.No.780 of 2005

----------

The Management of Reckitt & Benckiser (India) Ltd., rep. by its Factory Manager,

176, SIPCOT Industrial Complex,

Hosur  635 126. ..Appellant. -Vs-

1. United Labour Federation,

(Regn. No.2657/CNI),

rep. by its Regional Secretary

Balasubramanian,

149, Thambu Chetty Street,

IV Floor, CJ Complex,

Chennai 600 001.

2. The Labour Officer (Conciliation),

33 Bairappa Colony,

Krishnagiri.

3. Government of Tamil Nadu,

rep. by its Secretary,

Department of Labour & Employment,

Fort St.George,

Chennai 600 009. ..Respondents. PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order made in W.P.No.34266 of 2004 dated 25.11.200 4, as stated therein.

For Appellant :: Mr.V.Karthic for M/s.T.S.Gopalan For Respondent 3 :: Mr.V.Raghupathy,

Govt. Pleader.

---------

:J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Hon'ble The Chief Justice) This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 25.11.2004.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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. Consequenlty, W.A.M.P.No.780 of 2005 for stay is also dismissed.

Index: Yes

Internet : Yes

Vu/sm

Copy to:-

Government of Tamil Nadu,

rep. by its Secretary,

Department of Labour & Employment,

Fort St.George,

Chennai  600 009.



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.