Industrial Dispute with Union Workers: How Should We Respond to Repeated LEO Letters?

Industrial Dispute Between the Industrial Worker Union vs. M/s. [Company Name] at the Site of [Location]

Dear seniors, in reference to the subject mentioned above, I would like to inform you that two months ago, we received a letter from LEO requesting our presence to resolve the issue amicably. The letter did not provide details of the workmen, making it challenging for us to pinpoint the exact issue. We have undertaken five contract jobs for the same client and have engaged over 200 contract laborers for the execution of these contracts. As per our records, all legitimate dues have been settled for all completed contracts.

In response, we requested the labor office to share the workmen's details so that we could submit the necessary documents to their office. However, after two months, yesterday, we received a similar letter from LEO. I am considering sending the same response to their office. I seek guidance from senior members on how to proceed in this situation and whether sending the same reply could pose a problem for us in the future.

Thank you for your assistance.

Regards, Jitendra Das

Understanding the Role of the Labor Enforcement Officer

The Labor Enforcement Officer mentioned in the post is an enforcement authority under the CLRA Act, 1970. As such, the representation received from the Trade Union about the alleged non-settlement of full and final payments for 22 contract laborers is a complaint filed under the said Act and not an industrial dispute under the I.D. Act, 1947. Also, I am not aware of whether the LEO has been notified as a Conciliation Officer under the I.D. Act, 1947. Whatever the position may be, it is the basic step in the matter of complaint disposal to serve the copy of the complaint to the other side to enable them to answer the call.

Alternative Actions for the Labor Enforcement Officer

Alternatively, the LEO, as an enforcement officer under the CLRA Act, can inspect the premises of the principal employer and verify the veracity of the complaint with reference to connected documents, if any, with the principal employer. At times, it could even be a routine mistake made by the LEO's office. Therefore, a proper approach, in my opinion, would be that the principal employer's representative may present themselves before the officer on the appointed date and submit the letter in person.

Yes, the letter from the LEO may be for a joint meeting with the employer and the complainant. So, please go and defend your version for the smooth disposal of the complaint submitted to their office against you.

Dear Mr. Das,

This is a common phenomenon in our working sphere. The work of the labor department is to receive complaints and ask the employer to furnish details to settle the case.

As per the procedure, the labor department should furnish the details of the workmen who lodged a complaint with a copy of the application filed. As per your posting, no such details have been made available to you by LEO except advice to meet on a fixed date.

Your letter to LEO is right in this direction, and in between, you receive another letter from LEO. You send another communication referring to the second letter, stating that it is futile to attend the LEO office without any information in hand for any result. You seek the name of the workmen who raised the industrial dispute to settle the issue. Request to provide a 30-day extension after such details are provided from the office of LEO.

After making the communication to LEO, either you or someone responsible from your establishment should meet LEO in person to get the details.