Case Details: Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha vs. Shah and Company - [2026] 182 taxmann.com 42 (HC-Gujarat)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- A.S. Supehia & Gita Gopi, JJ.
-
Amresh Patel, Adv. & Harsh K Raval for the Appellant.
-
RD Dave & Sahil B. Trivedi, AGP for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the appellant (Trade Union) raised a dispute concerning the respondent (Company) issuing show-cause notices, suspending employees, and charging them with alleged misconduct, including going on strike and refusing to work in the transferred department/non- joining of duties.
The Labour Commissioner referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The Respondent challenged the reference by filing a writ petition. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the reference, relying on standing orders governing disciplinary proceedings and observing that employers could conduct departmental inquiries and that, before intercepting such inquiries through a reference, allegations should be meticulously examined and a strong prima facie case shown.
It was noted that the suspension of the workman and issuance of the charge sheet was an alteration in service condition, and he/she had a statutory and legal right to protest against the same by raising a dispute.
High Court Held
The High Court observed that, the moment the Labour Commissioner was satisfied that there was an existence of a dispute relating to the employment of a workman, it was not further open for him to adjudicate the same or form any opinion regarding the dispute, and he had no other alternative but to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal or to the Labour Court.
The High Court held that the Single Judge had fallen into error in setting aside the order of the Labour Commissioner referring the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication while examining the provision of standing orders governing misconduct and disciplinary proceedings. Thus, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge was to be quashed and set aside.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Talco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh v. State of Bihar (1989) 3 SCC 271 (para 16) followed
- Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [2007] 2006 taxmann.com 3129 (SC)/2006 (12) SCC 28 (para 17) distinguished
List of Cases Referred to
- Syndicate Bank and another v. K. Umesh Nayak (1994) 5 SCC 572 (para 5)
- Talco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh v. State of Bihar (1989) 3 SCC 271 (para 5)
- Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [2007] 2006 taxmann.com 3129 (SC) (para 7).
The post Suspension and Charge Sheet Alter Service Conditions – Industrial Dispute Maintainable | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
