1. The petitioner in these petitions and the respondents were parties to the conciliation proceedings which resulted into filing of failure report whereon the competent authority of the State passed an order on 26.12.2011, declining the request for referring the matter for adjudication on the ground of absence of letter of intervention and lack of authority on the part of the Union. All the three matters, thus contain identical challenge to the event dated 26.12.2011. They were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. The petitioner-Union raised charter of demand against the respective employer-respondents hereinabove. The conciliation proceeding started and it ended into failure, hence the failure report was submitted on which the decision impugned in this petition was taken not to refer the matter for adjudication on account of absence of letter of intervention as well as lack of authority on the part of the Union for representing the workman.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited this Court's attention to failure report dated 24.12.2012 wherein it is observed that the conciliation proceeding was conducted. The letter of request for intervention was received vide letter dated 26.07.2010 and on account of failure of the process the report was made. These facts have unfortunately not been noticed and appreciated by the concerned authority while rejecting the request for referring the matter for adjudication.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner, thereafter, invited this Court's attention to page nos.52 and 53, which is part of the settlement, which is termed as an interim settlement between the parties arrived at on 28.06.2011 i.e. after the failure report and during its conciliation and on that basis it is submitted that the reasoning given for rejecting the request in the impugned order is wholly misconceived and, therefore, the same is required to be quashed and set aside and appropriate direction is required to be issued to the authority.
5. Learned advocate for the respondent-employer could not controvert in any manner the fact that there exists an interim settlement between the parties pending adjudication of the Union's demands nor could he controvert the fact that the conciliation proceeding was conducted pursuant to the letter of intervention dated 26.07.2010 and participated in conciliation. However, he opposed the contentions raised on the part of the petitioner that the order impugned may not be interfered with.
6. This Court is of the considered view that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners in respect of letter of intervention has remained uncontroverted and is required to be taken into consideration, which would clearly indicate that the conclusion arrived at by the competent authority was incorrect and proceeded on incorrect premise. The fact that there exists interim settlement between the parties pending adjudication of their demands would also militate against the premise that Union did not have authority to represent the workman. Thus, when both the grounds on which the orders are passed being not existing. The order impugned is required to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The concerned authority is hereby directed to consider the failure report afresh in light of the aforesaid observations and do the appropriate within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Rule made absolute. No costs.
Pankaj (S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.)