Ajit Kumar Sinha, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs: (A) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated September 18, 2004 , passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 1/2002 whereby and whereunder the petitioner's application for disposal of the reference and for passing of an Award in terms of the settlement dated May 23, 2004 has been rejected in grossly illegal and arbitrary manner. (B) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that in view of the settlement dated May 23,2004 entered between the petitioner Management and the representative and majority Trade Union i.e. TATA Workers' Union which is the only recognized trade union and is the sole bargaining agent of the petitioner's establishment, whereby and whereunder the grievances and the disputes relating to the Temporary Employees concerning their absorption as permanent employees, wage settlement etc. has been amicably resolved during the conciliation proceeding and an agreement/settlement was arrived at during the conciliation proceeding signed by the majority representative Trade Union i.e., TATA Workers Union, the petitioner -Management and the Labour Commissioner -cum -Conciliation Officer, Government of Jharkhand, thus being a settlement under Section 1(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 arrived at during the conciliation proceeding has become binding on all the parties and even on dissenting minority Unions or dissenting minority workmen. (C) For issuance of such other writ, order or direction to hold and declare that in view of the settlement dated May 23, 2004 , all the disputes in relation to the Temporary Employees concerning their demand for absorption as permanent employees stands resolved and therefore, no dispute survives or exists for adjudication in the present Reference No. 1/2002 pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi and the said settlement becomes binding on all the workmen including the concerned workmen of Reference Case No. 1/2002. Accordingly, the learned Industrial Tribunal ought to have allowed the petition dated July 12,2004 filed by the Management by passing an Award in terms of the settlement dated May 23,2004. (D) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the reference dated November 23, 2001 now numbered as Reference 1/2002 pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi as not maintainable and without jurisdiction.
(2.) THE issue arises from the same settlement dated May 23,2004 and the question of law being common both the writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order. The facts, in brief, in W.P. (L) No. 5872/2004 is set out as under: The petitioner is a registered Company under the Indian Companies Act and primarily engaged in the business of manufacturing of Steel and its ancillary purposes. The concerned workmen about 109 in number raised a demand before the petitioner Company for regularization and permanent employment in TISCO vide their letter of demand dated May 30, 1998. The said letter of demand was instituted by the following five authorized representatives: (i) Anil Kumar Singh, (ii) Akhilesh Kumar Pandey; (iii) Ajay Kumar Jha (iv) Silanath Sharma. (v) D.K. Chakraborty. It was inter alia stated by the concerned workmen in the letter of demand that they were employed as temporary employees who worked in the Company for the last several years for different spells of time but later on they were disengaged. It was also stated by them that most of them are the sons and wards of the permanent employees registered for employment in the Company as per the provisions of the Standing Orders of the Company and therefore, they made a demand with a copy thereof to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Jamshedpur for initiation of conciliation proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Conciliation proceeding was initiated under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner also appeared before the Conciliation Officer and filed its statement explaining therein that the temporary employees are engaged for specified period from out of pool of registered temporary employees maintained by the petitioner Company depending upon the vacancies and exigencies of work and they are engaged intermittently on rotational basis amongst the pool of registered temporary employees purely on temporary basis and each time for specified period and after such period of engagement are over, these temporary employees are disengaged. Thereafter, such temporary employees have to wait for their further engagement depending upon any future; requirement. The conciliation, in view of the stand taken by the respective parties, failed and therefore, the failure report was sent and the matter was referred for adjudication before the" Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi by making the reference in the following terms; Whether 109 (one hundred and nine) temporary workmen of TISCO Limited, Jamshedpur as per Annexure -1 working for last many years are entitled to regularization of their services? If not what other relief they are entitled to? It appears that during the pendency of Reference a petition was filed by the petitioners on July 12,2004 on behalf of the Management with a. prayer to dispose of the instant Reference by making an Award in the light of the settlement dated May 23, 2004. The petitioner Management stated that the Tata Industrial Steel Company Limited hereinafter referred to as TISCO have entered into a settlement with the exclusively registered and recognized Union in the name and style of Tata Workers' Union who had the sole bargaining power with the TISCO, relating to service conditions including the rights of workers, their wages etc. In the second W.P. (L) 5845/2004 filed by the same management (TISCO) there are 33 workmen and the petition dated August 9, 2004 to pass an award in terms of settlement dated May 23, 2004 was dismissed vide order dated September 13, 2004.
(3.) THE learned Industrial Tribunal Ranchi in both the reference cases vide its impugned order and judgment dated September 13, 2004 and September 18,2004 held that the settlement dated May 23, 2004 was not binding on the concerned workmen and thus the Reference could not be disposed of at this stage in terms of the settlement dated May 23, 2004 and accordingly dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner Management. The aforesaid two impugned orders are sought to be challenged in the present writ petition.;