High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Kapra Mills Mazdoor Union v. Addl. Labour Commissioner & Others - WRIT - C No. 6135 of 1994  RD-AH 1470 (22 November 2004)
Court No. 51
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6135 of 1994
Kapra Mill Miazdor Union ....... Petitioner
Add. Labour Commissioner, Ghaziabad & others -- Respondents.
Hon'ble V.C.Misra, J.
Sri K.P. Agarwal learned Senior Advocate, for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, for respondents no. 1 and 4 are present.
1. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner Union, represents a large number of workmen employed in the Factories of the respondents no. 2 and 4 who had been kept out of employment since 1983 because of great upheaval in Modinagar, due to strike of workmen which had resulted in police firing in which some of the workmen consequently died. The respondents no. 2 and 3 declared lock out. Thereafter an agreement dated 25.1.1990 duly signed, was entered into between the petitioner-union, representing the workmen and the respondents no. 2 & 3. Notwithstanding the said agreement certain differences still continued to exist and, therefore, it was agreed to refer the matter to an Arbitration. Sri K.L. Dwivedi, Additional Labour Commissioner, U.P. Ghaziabad was appointed as an Arbitrator. He gave his decision on 5.3.1990, which was subsequently clarified by him by another order including few more names of workmen. The petitioner has stated that non-implementation of the said agreement and the orders amounts to unfair labour practice, punishable under section 25-T of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It has been stated that in spite of several representations made by the petitioner to the Additional Labour Commissioner, the matter was not referred to the State machinery for compulsory adjudication of the dispute under Section 4-K of the Act. It has been also stated that the State Government could have referred the dispute even without any formal conciliation proceedings for compulsory adjudication. Being aggrieved the petitioner-Union has filed this writ petition on the aforesaid grounds.
2. Inspite of time being granted repeatedly to the respondents, they have not filed their counter affidavit in rebuttal to the averments made in the writ petition, till date.
3. I have looked in to the record and heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents, at length, I am of the view that in the interest of justice respondents no. 1 and 4 ought to have taken steps for implementation of the agreement dated 25.1.1990 as well as the orders passed by the Arbitrator, and on non-implementation of the same, it should have referred the matter as industrial disputes for compulsory adjudication of the case, exercising its powers conferred under the Act.
4. In view of the said above facts and circumstances of the case and the observations made herein above, the respondent no. 4 is directed to consider the said matter for making a reference, under Section 4-K of the Act, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order before it.
With the above observations and directions the writ petition stands disposed off. There will be no order as to costs.
November 22, 2004
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.