4426 of 1989 in the High Court of Orissa.
The decision of the Court was based only on the finding that the Implementation and Evaluation Officer was number the Implementation Machinery under the Code and the Implementation Officer had numberauthority to process the application for recognition.
Both the writ petitions were heard together by a Division Bench of the High Court and by its impuged companymon judgment, the Court was pleased to allow the Ist respondents petition and dismiss the appellants petition.
In pursuance of the same, the Deputy Labour Commissioner passed an order on December 14, 1989 calling upon the different trade unions to produce the necessary records within 10 days of the receipt of the numberice.
361 of 1990 seeking a direction to the Labour Commissioner, and the Deputy Labour Commissioner to companyplete the verification of the membership of the Unions and to fix a time limit to companyplete the process and recognition and for ancillary reliefs.
At the same time, the appellant Union filed a Writ Petition being OJC No.
These orders passed by the Labour Commissioner and Deputy Labour Commissioner were challenged by the Ist respondent Rourkela Mazdoor Sabha which is a rival union in the Plant by way of a Writ Petition being OJC No.
The appellant in the said letter had further requested the Labour Commissioner to pass orders for immediate verification of the membership of all the trade unions operating in the said Plant and to recommend for recognition, the Union having majority of the membership.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.5.1990 of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C. No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAWANT, J. Leave granted.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1824 of 1991.
4426 of 1989 filed by the Ist respondent and dismissing the appllants Writ Petition being No.
Gobind Das, S.B. Upadhyay, Harish Salve, Ms. Kirti Misra and S.R. Grover for the Respondents.
The only question which falls for companysideration in the present case is what is the meaning of Implementation Machinery within the meaning of the Code of Discipline hereinafter referred to as the Code ratified by all Central Employers and Workers Organisations at the 16th session of the Indian Labour Conference held in May 1958 and which came into force from June 1, 1958.
Shanti Bhushan and Prashant Bhushan for the Appellant.
The question assumes importance in the present case because the High Court by the impugned decision has held that since the appellant Union had addressed its application for recognition number to the Implementation Machinery but to the Implementation Officer, the same was number properly made and the Implementation Officer had numberauthority to initiate the process of recognition.
On receipt of this request, the Labour Commissioner as the Implementation and Evaluation Officer authorised the Deputy Labour Commissioner on December 5, 1989 to carry out the process of verification of the membership of the registered trade unions.
4426 of 1989.
The admitted facts are that the appellant Rourkela Sramik Sangh had addressed a letter on October 9, 1989 to the Implementation and Evaluation Officer cum Labour Comissionner Orissa, Cuttack intimating him that as per the Code it had called upon the Rourkela Steel Plant to recognise it as the sole bargaining agent in the Plant, but that the Plant had number replied to the same.
