The reference by the Government to Industrial Tribunal should be appropriately worded
Supreme Court of India has given the following Judgment in the matter of M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (TISCO) Vs State of Jharkhand & Ors.
TISCO Ltd sold its cement manfacturing unit to Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd in the year 1999. Before the sale of the company, it has taken the consent of the workmen for sale and transfer of workmen from TISCO to Lafarge.
Judgment of Supreme Court:
The supreme court held that the Reference made by Government is defective as it did not take care of correct and precise nature of the dispute. Accordingly, the Order of High Court is set aside and Government was directed to make fresh reference.
Learning:
The reference by the government should be appropriately worded depicting the nature of dispute.
To download the case, click here
Supreme Court of India has given the following Judgment in the matter of M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (TISCO) Vs State of Jharkhand & Ors.
TISCO Ltd sold its cement manfacturing unit to Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd in the year 1999. Before the sale of the company, it has taken the consent of the workmen for sale and transfer of workmen from TISCO to Lafarge.
M/s Lafarge has taken workmen of TISCO without service interruption and same service conditions. After joining M/s Lafarge, the workmen contended that they were directed to work with M/s Lafarge without their consent. The workmen contended that TISCO has given an impression to them that they would work in M/s Lafarge for some time and TISCO would take back them again.
An Industrial Dispute was raised by the workmen before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jamshedpur. Since no settlement was reached, conciliation proceedings resulted in failure. Thereafter, the matter was referred by State Government with the following refrence:
“Whether not to take back Shri K. Chandrashekhar Rao and 73 other workmen (list enclosed) of M/s TISCO Limited, Jamshedpur in service by their own TISCO Management after their transfer to M/s. Lafarge India Limited, is justified? If not what relief they are entitled to?”
TISCO filed writ petition challenging the above reference. High Cour of Jharkhand as well as Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court dismissed the petition stating that there exists dispute between the parties of the petition.
Therefore TISCO challenged the order of High Court in Supreme Court. The following grounds were taken by TISCO in the Special Leave Petition filed in Supreme Court:
Therefore TISCO challenged the order of High Court in Supreme Court. The following grounds were taken by TISCO in the Special Leave Petition filed in Supreme Court:
- The manner in which the references are worded, do not depict the true nature of the dispute between the parties.
- The concerned workmen were no longer in employment of TISCO and, therefore, could not have raised the grievance or any dispute against TISCO.
- TISCO took a specific plea that if M/s. Lafarge did not provide assured service terms, these respondents could raise the dispute only against M/s. Lafarge which was their real employer and M/s. Lafarge was not even made partial in the present proceedings
Judgment of Supreme Court:
The supreme court held that the Reference made by Government is defective as it did not take care of correct and precise nature of the dispute. Accordingly, the Order of High Court is set aside and Government was directed to make fresh reference.
Learning:
The reference by the government should be appropriately worded depicting the nature of dispute.
To download the case, click here
Post a Comment