I am not sure whether this question occurred to you out of mere academic curiosity or because of any practical issue connected with some industrial dispute concerning your organization. Whatever the reason, the answer to your question is very important to every HR manager and trade union leader, as its widespread ramifications can affect industrial relations further.
The brief answer given by Mr. Madhu indicates the commencement of conciliation to the reference of the dispute by any one of the parties to the dispute, whereas Mr. Aditya's elaborate reply, though it covers more of the duties of the Conciliation Officer, just touches on its commencement to an earlier stage of apprehension of the dispute. In one way or another, both are correct from practical points of view emanating from the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. So, I may be kindly excused for demanding more of the precious time and focused attention of keenly interested people like you.
We don't find any statutory definition for the term "conciliation" in the I.D. Act, though it defines terms such as "Conciliation Officer" [2(d)], "Conciliation Proceeding" [2(e)], etc., associated with the term. Therefore, if we resort to dictionary meanings, we will find "to make compatible," "to reconcile," "to pacify," all invariably pointing to the act of intervention and mediation by a third party in a dispute. So, in general, the involvement of a third party in a dispute presupposes the reference of it by anyone or all the disputants, as mentioned by Madhu. But, when the third-party intervention assumes a statutory flavor by operation of law, the apprehension theory comes into foreplay, as indicated by Aditya, of course, in certain situations.
When the statutory meaning of the phrase "Conciliation Proceeding" is conjunctively read with the definition of the term "industrial dispute" [2(k)], its precision becomes all the more difficult. A dispute in an industry need not necessarily always partake the character of an industrial dispute. So, any number of references by the parties or a proactive apprehension by the Conciliation Officer of such a non-industrial dispute cannot warrant the initiation of conciliation proceedings defined in the Act. Therefore, two schools of thought exist as to the exact commencement of the conciliation proceeding. For convenience's sake, let's call them the first and second schools of thought. The first one places its reasoning on the definition of conciliation proceeding and holds that any formal notice of intervention marks the commencement of conciliation proceedings. The second school of thought places its reasoning on the preamble of the Act and the definition of the term industrial dispute and holds that whatever is done by the Conciliation Officer prior to the issue of notice under Sec. 12(1) as preliminary inquiry or investigation is to assess the necessity of embarking upon conciliation, and the conciliation proceeding before him commences exactly on the date fixed by him in the notice issued u/s 12(1).
Keeping this aside, let us conclude the answer as follows with the aid of the provisions of Sec. 20 of the Act that deals with the commencement and conclusion of proceedings:
(1) Insofar as a public utility service concern is concerned, conciliation proceeding is deemed to have commenced on the date a notice of strike or lockout u/s. 22 is received by the conciliation officer or on the date of reference to the Board of Conciliation.
(2) Regarding any dispute in a non-public utility service concern, conciliation proceeding by a conciliation officer commences exactly on the date mentioned in his notice issued u/s. 12(1), including the case involving the issuance of a notice of strike or lockout. In the case of a Board, conciliation proceeding is deemed to have commenced on the very date of reference by the Appropriate Govt u/s. 10(1)(a).
Regards.