- (1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by M/s Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd., Phoolpur Allahabad praying for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the 28 orders dated 12.05.2009 passed by the Conciliation Officer/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Allahabad filed as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition.
(2.) M/s Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as IFFCO), is a cooperative society registered under the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act mainly engaged in manufacturing and marketing of fertiliser and urea. One of its unit is situate at Phoolpur, Allahabad. The respondent Nos. 3 to 30 who claimed to have been working with the said unit alleged that they have been illegally terminated from service by the petitioner on 1.1.1996. Initially there was some dialogue going on between the petitioner and the workmen and their Union, thereafter, on representations having been submitted by the workers and their Union they were called for discussions. However when every effort failed in getting redressal of their grievance the petitioners filed applications before the Conciliation Officer/ respondent No. 2 in May, 2007 that their services were illegally terminated, contrary to the provisions of law. Accordingly they claimed reinstatement with continuation in service and back-wages. Along with this application they also filed an application to condone the delay as it was beyond a period of six months, in raising their claim for the reasons given in the said application. Reference was also made to two writ petitions filed in representative capacity which also indirectly related to their service dispute.
(3.) All the respondent Nos. 3 to 30 filed separate applications raising industrial dispute and also for condoning the delay. All such applications have been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the petition. The Conciliation Officer/ respondent No. 2 issued notices to the petitioner in each of the cases on 19th June, 2007 calling upon them to appear on 6th July, 2007 and file their reply in the delay matter. All such notices have been filed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. The petitioner filed objections on 11.09.2007 stating that the application for conciliation is liable to be rejected. The main ground taken was that the dispute was being raised after 10 years and 10 months and neither the Conciliation Officer could proceed nor the Government could refer such belated claim for adjudication. Apart from the above ground it was also mentioned that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 3 to 30. In addition to it para-wise reply was also given. These objections have been filed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. The Conciliation Officer after considering the objections of the petitioner held that as there was no time limit prescribed for raising a dispute under law, further that the workmen were entitled for adjudication of their rights and even if the dispute is found to be raised at the belated stage it would be for the Tribunal or the Labour Court to decide such dispute and accordingly condoned the delay vide order 12.12.2007. Against the said order the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 10556 of 2008. This Court after exchange of affidavits and after hearing the counsel for the parties allowed the writ petition vide judgement and order dated 1.12.2008 and remanded the matter to the Conciliation Officer for a fresh decision on the delay condonation application as according to this Court in the order passed by the Conciliation Officer the two writ petitions mentioned in the delay condonation application of the workmen, had no co-relation with the present claim made by the respondent Nos. 3 to 30 and secondly the Conciliation Officer had refused to condone the delay in a similar matter vide order dated 25.02.2008. The judgement of this Court has been filed as Anneuxre 6 to this petition. The relevant portion of the judgement is quoted hereunder: I have considered the submissions made on behalf of parties and have perused the record. From the perusal of record, the basis of condonation of delay by placing reliance upon writ petitions mentioned above, does not exist. From the relief claimed in the writ petitions above, there is no relief by the respondent regarding their working, dismissal from service and for the purpose of giving employment again. The first writ petition bearing writ petition No. 38761 of 1992 was for the purpose of giving an employment to those persons whose land has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and the writ petition No. 43709 of 2005 was for the purpose of granting compensation regarding damage of their crop due to not maintaining the proper drainage of the waste material from the company. Therefore, the basis of the order passed by respondent No. 2 to the effect that respondent workmen were pursuing their remedy by way of representation and by filing writ petition does not bear from the record. However the same authority on the basis of similar documents and for same relief has rejected the claim by order dated 25.2.2008 that there is no dispute between the parties. In view of the aforesaid facts, though normally this Court in such situation does not interfere but after perusal of the record and two conflicting orders passed by the same authority, I am of the view that this Court in such situation, can exercise the powers provided to this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a special case, considering the facts of the present case the writ petition is allowed and impugned order dated 12.12.2007 (Annexure No. 4 to this writ petition) is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to respondent No. 2 to consider it as a fresh on the basis of relevant documents after giving full opportunity to parties and a specific finding to this effect be recorded whether there exists any dispute between the parties or not. While considering the present case, respondent No. 2 will also consider the order dated 25.2.2008 passed in similar circumstances. It will be proper that respondent No. 2 decides the matter within a period of three months from the date of production of certified coy of this order. It will be open to parties to lead their evidences available regarding approaching respondent No. 2 after a period of eleven years. No order as to costs.;