- (1.) THE appellant in this appeal is the management of S. K. F. Bearings India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Managment' ). The 1st respondent was the workman in the establishment of the management.
(2.) IN this appeal, the management has called in question the correctness of the order dated 7th november 2001 made in writ petition No. 36114 of 2001 by the Learned Single Judge of this court. In the impugned order, the learned Single Judge quashed the endorsement dated 19th december 2000, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-A, issued by the 3rd respondent, wherein the 3rd respondent informed the workman that the request to lodge a complaint against the management for violation of Section 33a of the Industrial Disputes Act (herein after referred to as 'the Act') has been rejected on the ground that on 19th July 1999 when the workman came to be terminated from service, there was no conciliation proceedings pending on that date. The Learned Judge in the impugned order further directed the 3rd respondent to reconsider the prayer of the workman in the light of the observation made by him in the course of the order impugned and also the documents-Annexures-B, C and D produced in the writ petition.
(3.) THE facts in brief: The workman filed the petition dated 26th November 1998 before the conciliation officer, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-B to this appeal inter alia contending that there were 35 apprentices who have been working in the establishment of the Management for more than two years and they were recruited against the vacancies that had occurred on the cessation of service of the regular workmen and as such their services were required to be regularised and therefore, the conciliation officer should intervene in the matter and resolve the issue by stopping any such unilateral action of the management by arranging conciliation between the union and the management within 30th November 1998. Pursuant to the said petition/representation given by the President of the workmen's union, the conciliation officer issued a notice dated 27th november 1998 to the management informing the management that a joint-meeting for conciliation is proposed to be held between the management and workmen on 4th December 1998 at 3. 00 p. m. and for the said purpose the management and the union of the workmen should be present without fail along with the necessary documents and registers and in the meanwhile both the parties should maintain status quo and not to indulge in any untoward incidents as conciliation proceedings were on. Pursuant to the said notice, the parties appeared before the conciliation officer on 4th January 1999 and the proceedings were adjourned to 14th January 1999 on the ground that nobody was present on behalf of the management though the representative of the union was present. On 14th January 1999, again the proceedings were adjourned on the ground that nobody was present on behalf of the management though the representative of the union was present. The proceedings were again taken up by the conciliation officer on 25* January 1999. Even on the said date, though the representative of the Union was present, in view of the request made by the management by their letter dated 22nd January 1999, the proceedings were adjourned to 8th February 1999. On 8th February 1999 though both the parties were present, the proceedings were adjourned without giving a specific date. However, again on 3 lst March 1999 though the representatives of the workmen's union were present, since none were present on behalf of the management, the proceedings were adjourned without giving a date. However, the matter was again called on 12th April 1999. Even on the said date though the representative of the workmen's union was present, since none were present on behalf of the management, the proceedings were adjourned. On 7th August 1999, after some discussion, the matter was adjourned informing both the parties that the next date of healing would be notified to them. However, the proceedings were called on 22nd September 1999. On the said date though the representatives of the workmen's union were present, since the management prayed for adjournment of the proceedings, the proceedings were adjourned without giving a specific date. In the meanwhile, on 19th July 1999, the management terminated the services of the 1st respondent who was the president of the union of the workmen. Subsequently, though the matter stood adjourned on several dates from 30th October 1999 till July 2000, since the conciliation failed, the conciliation officer sent a report dated 13th July 2000, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-R1 to the State Government reporting that the conciliation had failed. The report also observes that on 30th October 1999, that the conciliation officer had initiated conciliation proceedings as provided under Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. However, during the pendency of the proceedings even before the failure report was given by the conciliation officer, the workman had lodged a complaint dated 16th November 1999 before the government alleging that the termination of his service was made in contravention of Section 33 (1) of the Act and seeking permission to prosecute the management. As and seeking permission to prosecute the management. As noticed by us earlier, the 3rd respondent by means of his endorsement-Annexure-A informed the workman that since on the date of termination of his service by the management no conciliation was pending, the permission sought to lodge a complaint against the management was rejected. Aggrieved by the said endorsement annexure-A, as noticed by us earlier, the workman filed the writ petition out of which this appeal arises before this Court inter alia contending that the conclusion reached by the State government that on the date of termination of his service by the management that there was no conciliation proceedings pending before the conciliation officer was erroneous in law and therefore, the endorsement-Annexure-A issued by the State Government was required to be quashed. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order on consideration of the rival contentions took the view that on the date of termination of services of the workmen on 19th July 1999, since the conciliation proceedings had commenced by means of issue of notice dated 27th november 1998, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-C to this appeal, the termination of service of the workman was made in contravention of Section 33 of the Act as admittedly no approval for such termination was obtained by the management. In the light of the said conclusion, the Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition as stated above. ;