ID Act | Workmen Need Not File Separate Application If Prior Grievances Raised With Employer Were Marked To Conciliation Officer: Jharkhand HC
The Jharkhand High Court has held that a formal application under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not mandatory, if the workmen have marked copies of their representations and grievances addressed to the employer to the Conciliation Officer, thereby bringing the dispute to the notice of the labour authorities.A Single Judge Bench of Deepak Roshan was hearing writ...
The Jharkhand High Court has held that a formal application under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not mandatory, if the workmen have marked copies of their representations and grievances addressed to the employer to the Conciliation Officer, thereby bringing the dispute to the notice of the labour authorities.
A Single Judge Bench of Deepak Roshan was hearing writ petitions challenging the orders of the Labour Court, Deoghar, which had dismissed the workmen's claims solely on the ground that no formal application had been submitted before the Conciliation Officer under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Background:
The petitioners were engaged as casual workmen by the Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand, in different capacities including nalkup-khalasi, hand pumpman, khalasi, hand-pump mechanic and jhadukash, and each of them claimed to have worked for varying periods between 1980 and 2017, completing more than 240 days of work in every year.
Their core grievance was that, after they submitted representations seeking regularisation of their services, their engagement was abruptly terminated through oral orders, and they were informed that reinstatement would be possible only if they agreed to work on a contractual basis. Aggrieved by the sudden oral termination, the petitioners raised an industrial dispute before the Executive Engineer and the Superintendent Engineer of the Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand, and had also marked copies of their letters (setting out the dispute and seeking redressal of their grievances) to the concerned labour authorities.
The Court noted that the central issue was whether a deemed reference under Section 2A(2) existed and whether the disputes ought to have been adjudicated on merits. It observed that Section 2A treats the termination of an individual workman as an “industrial dispute”, and that sub-section (2), introduced with effect from 15 September 2010, only enables a workman to approach the Labour Court after the lapse of forty-five days from making an application to the Conciliation Officer.
The High Court held that the Labour Court had adopted an unduly strict and literal interpretation of Section 2A(2), and that what is required is only substantive compliance with the statutory requirement. It held:
“The petitioners' however, had sent copies of the letters addressed to their employer stating the dispute and demanding redressal of their grievances. This is sufficient compliance with the requirement of making application in Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.”Top of Form
The Court observed that once the labour authorities became aware of the existence of an industrial dispute, it was their statutory duty to initiate the conciliation process. It further noted that the workmen had waited for 45 days, which is the mandatory condition precedent for approaching the Labour Court under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Accordingly, the High Court remanded the matter to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication on merits.
Title: Pradeep Kumar Roy and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others
Case Number: W.P.(L) No. 2852 of 2019
Appearance: Mr. Saurabh Shekhar for the Petitioners. Mr. Divyam and Mr. Ashwini Bhushan for the Respondents.Bottom of Form