B.S.CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) BY this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order/authorisation dated 11.3.1994 contained in Annexure F to the petition granted by the 'appropriate Government' under Sub -section (1) of Section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act') authorising prosecution of the Management/petitioners under Sections 25T and 25U of the Act for alleged commission of certain unfair labour practice as defined under Section 2(ra) read with Schedule -V of the Act. The prosecution is assailed basically on the ground that unless there is an adjudication of the dispute and eligibility of the persons alleging the unfair labour practice, there cannot be authorisation for prosecution.
(2.) THE factual gamut of the case reveals that the respondent No. 3, 6 the General Secretary, Lake Palace Hotel Employees Union made an application to the respondent No. 1, the 'appropriate Government' for authorisation to file a complaint before the competent Court of the learned Magistrate for prosecuting the management for adopting the unfair labour practice which was in respect of changing the seniority, rating the workmen because of trade union activities, refusal to give promotion to the workmen to higher posts on their trade union activities and for giving unmetted promotion to certain workmen to create discard amongst the workers and undermine the strength of the union. The said application, alongwith its annexure, is contained in Annexure. A to the petition. On 21.1.1992 the respondent No. 1, the appropriate Government issued a Show Cause Notice (Annexure. D) to the Management/petitioners as to why the authorisation should not be granted. The management filed its reply on 13.2.1992 which is contained in Annexure. C to the petition, wherein a detailed reply to the application was filed with an additional plea that a Conciliation Settlement No. 27/81 dated 23.10.1981, which became the part of the Rules applicable in the instant case and the said rules provide for a detailed Grievance Redressal Procedure i.e., making a representation against any unfair labour practice to the concerned authority of the hotel and, also, provided for further remedies under the Rules and without exhausting the same, the said application was not maintainable. The other main ground mentioned in the reply to the show cause notice was that unless the issue of adoption of unfair labour practice is adjudicated upon by the Tribunal in a reference under Section 10 of the Act. The said application is not maintainable. The management, also, made applications on 26.8.1992 and 5.8.1994 contained in Annexures. D and E respectively, making requests to record evidence before sanctioning the authorisation of the prosecution and alongwith those application, some evidence was also adduced to rebut the allegations of respondent No. 3, the employee union. The respondent No. 1, 'appropriate Government' gave opportunity of hearing to both the parties and passed the impugned order dated 11.3.1994 authorising the respondent No. 3 to file complaint before the competent Court. The relevant part of the authorisation reads as under: Whereas an application was made by the General Secretary, Lake Palace Hotel Employees Union, Udaipur...for authorising him to file a complaint against the General Manager, Lake Palace Hotel, Udaipur, for committing unfair labour practice and whereas on the application of the union, the concerned authorises were heard on the same and whereas the State Government is satisfied that there is a prima facie case of committing unfair labour practice against the General Manager, Lake Palace Hotel, on the basis of the complaint and the record made available to the State Government, now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred on the State Government under Sub -section (1) of Section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Shri Virendra Singh...is authorised to file a complaint. In pursuance to the said authorisation, respondent No. 3 filed a complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur a copy of, which is annexed as Annexure. Rule 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioners have challenged the said order of authorisation by filing this writ petition.
(3.) THE instant petition has mainly been filed on the following grounds: (1) The authorisation to a private person under Section 34(1) of the Act by the appropriate government is not permissible as the mandate of the Act requires that the complaint may be filed either by the State or its officer if authorised by the State; (2) no authorisation can be granted unless some competent forum, i.e. Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal or Civil Court, in appropriate cases, records a finding of facts of adopting the unfair labour practice. (3) the authorisation is bad as the Rules applicable in the instant case had been framed by incorporating the Conciliation Award dated 23.10.1981 and the procedure for redressal of the grievance provided under the said Rules had not been followed. (4) the authorisation is bad as the same has been granted without application of mind as much as it does not disclose the reasons, for which it has been allowed. ;