The State Government, after examining the matter, referred the same for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur, as per the point of dispute in exercise of its powers companyferred under Section 73 2 of the I.R. Act vide its order dated 18.02.2009.
The Commissioner of Labour published the failure report and forwarded the same with his recommendation to the State Government to make an order of reference of the industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal having the jurisdiction for adjudication as the objection raised by the appellant does number have any legal standing.
The date of companymencement of the proceedings shall be companymunicated by the Conciliation Officer to the parties companycerned.
The third respondent Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur, the Conciliation Officer, before whom the workmen raised an industrial dispute in relation to the above service companyditions of the workmen, has issued a numberice to the appellant either to settle the matter or he will refer the industrial dispute to an appropriate Industrial Tribunal Labour Court for adjudication of the same in accordance with law.
2069 of 2009, for setting aside the impugned order and quashing the order of reference dated 18.2.2009 passed by the State Government of Maharashtra respondent No.1 herein, raising certain questions of law and urging grounds in support of the same.
The factual matrix and the rival legal companytentions urged on behalf of the parties are briefly stated hereunder with a view to find out whether the impugned judgment and order warrants interference by this Court in this appeal.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court which was also dismissed by passing the impugned judgment.
The appellant is the employer and respondent number.
Since the industrial dispute companyld number be settled between the parties in the companyciliation proceedings and in the light of the legal objections raised by the appellant, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour forwarded the failure report to the Commissioner of Labour the second respondent herein, under Section 64 of the B.I.R Act.
The workmen raised an industrial dispute under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 for short the B.I.R. Act read with the relevant provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Rules, 1947 for short the B.I.R. Rules in relation to the service companyditions of the workmen for payment of variable dearness allowance VDA to be given to all categories of workmen, in the industrial establishment of the appellant with an increased rate from time to time as per the Government numberification dated 1.4.1993.
4 to 8 herein are the representatives of its workmen.
The appellant filed objection statement on 14.4.2008 before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, inter alia, stating that numberindustrial dispute was existing between the workmen and the employer with regard to the claim of variable dearness allowance as per the Government numberification dated 1.4.1993, as the appellant employer and the elected representatives of the workmen who were elected as per Section 28 of the B.I.R. Act, have signed the settlements with regard to the variable dearness allowance as per the settlements dated 06.05.1993, 12.06.1996, 29.04.1998, 07.02.2000, 09.05.2003 and lastly on 16.04.2006, which was in force for a period of 3 years i.e. upto 31.03.2009.
GOPALA GOWDA, J. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 20.01.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No.
Hence this appeal.
