The Supreme Court has held that raising a prior charter of demands directly before the employer is not a mandatory precondition for initiating conciliation proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act), particularly where an industrial dispute is apprehended.
The bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti has clarified the scope of Sections 10 and 12 of the ID Act and reinforces the proactive role of conciliation authorities in preventing industrial unrest.
The appeal arose from a challenge by M/s Premium Transmission Private Limited, a manufacturing company based in Aurangabad, against a reference order dated 28 January 2020 issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Maharashtra. The reference pertained to a dispute raised by Aurangabad Mazdoor Union on behalf of workers engaged through registered labour contractors.
The union alleged that the contractual arrangements were sham and bogus, designed to deny workmen permanent status, equal wages, and statutory benefits. It sought regularisation of services, parity in wages, and protection against unfair labour practices.
The management contended that the workers were employed by independent contractors registered under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (CLRA), and that no employer–employee relationship existed between the company and the workers.
The central issue before the Court was whether conciliation proceedings and a subsequent reference to the Industrial Court are invalid merely because the union did not first raise a charter of demands directly with the employer before approaching the Conciliation Officer.
The company argued that an “industrial dispute” under Section 2(k) of the ID Act can arise only after a formal demand is made on the employer and rejected. The union directly approached the Conciliation Officer without first placing its demands before the management. The Conciliation Officer admitted the dispute mechanically and in violation of the Conciliation Manual. Since the workers were contract labourers, the union lacked locus standi.
Relying on earlier judgments such as Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. and Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department, the management claimed the reference itself was illegal.
The union countered that the ID Act does not prescribe any rigid format or requirement for a written demand except in the case of public utility services. The dispute was at least an apprehended industrial dispute, giving the Conciliation Officer jurisdiction under Section 12(1). Raising demands directly before the employer could have resulted in immediate termination of workers, defeating the protective object of labour laws. Whether the contract was genuine or a camouflage was a question of fact requiring adjudication by the Industrial Court.
Upholding the Bombay High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the management’s appeal and ruled a formal written demand is not a sine qua non for the existence of an industrial dispute under the ID Act, except in public utility services. The appropriate Government has the power to refer not only existing disputes but also apprehended disputes under Section 10(1). Conciliation is a preventive mechanism, and authorities need not wait for industrial unrest to actually erupt. The existence or otherwise of an employer–employee relationship, including whether the contract is sham or genuine, is a matter for adjudication by the Industrial Court, not for rejection at the threshold. Interference at the stage of reference on preliminary objections would defeat the very object of the ID Act and delay industrial justice.
The Court reiterating that industrial disputes are defined broadly and should not be curtailed by procedural technicalities.
Case Details
Case Title: M/S Premium Transmission Private Limited Versus State of Maharashtra
Case No.: S.L.P. (CIVIL) NO. 9970 OF 2023
Date: 27/01/2026
