An individual workman is not a party to an industrial dispute independently of the Union which has espoused his cause. The Union, through its officer, is entitled to represent the workman in the proceedings before the Tribunal.

Judgment

DAS GUPTA, J. : This appeal by special leave is against an order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dismissing summarily an application of the present appellant under Art. 226 and Art. 227 of the Constitution. The appellant was a workman employed in the Digha factory of Bata Shoe Company (Private) Limited, since October, 1943. On January 13, 1954, the management of the company served him with a charge-sheet alleging that he had been doing anti-union activities inside the factory during the working hours and so was guilty under Sec. 12B (1) of the Standing Orders and Rules of the company. On January 14, he submitted a written reply denying the charge and asking to be excused. On January 15, the management made an order terminating his services, with effect from January 18, 1954. An industrial dispute was raised on this question of dismissal by the Union and was referred along with a number of other disputes to the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, by a notification dated April 29, 1955. After written statements were filed by the Union and the management, February 20, 1956, was fixed for hearing at Patna. Thereafter numerous adjournments were given by the Tribunal on the joint petition for time filed by both the parties stating that all the disputes were going to be compromised. On November 16, 1956, the Tribunal made an order fixing December 20, 1956. "for filling compromise or hearing . On December 20, 1956, however a fresh application for time was filed but it was stated that agreement had already been reached on some of the matters and opportunity was asked for to settle the other matters. The cases was however adjourned to January 21, 1957, for filling a compromise or hearing. On that date a further petition was again filed and a further extension of time was allowed till February 1, 1957. On January 31, the parties that is, the management and the Union filed a joint petition of compromise settling all points of disputes out of court.

2. Prior to this, on January 12, 1957, the present appellant had made an application praying that D. N. Ganguli and M. P. Gupta, two of his co-workers might be allowed to represent his case before the Tribunal instead of Fateh Singh, the Secretary of the Union and that he did not want his case to be represented by Fateh Singh as he had no faith in him. This application was dismissed by the Tribunal by an order dated February 26, 1957. On March 7, 1957, the appellant filed a fresh petition stating that he had not authorised Fateh Singh to enter into any agreement in his case and praying that the agreement filed in respect of his case should not be accepted and that he and his agents should be heard before the disposal of the case. This prayer was not allowed by the Tribunal and by an order dated March 11, 1957, an award in terms of the petition of compromise was made.

3. The appellant filed his application to the Patna High Court on March 13, 1957, praying for an issue of an appropriate writ or direction quashing the Tribunal s order of February 26, 1957, by which the Tribunal had rejected his prayer for representation by a person of his own choice in place of Fateh Singh, the Secretary of the Union. Prayer was made in this petition also for a direction on the Tribunal not to record the compromise in so far as it related to the appellant s case and to give its award without reference to the settlement and on proper adjudication of the matter. The High Court dismissed this application summarily. It is against that order of dismissal that the present appeal by special leave has been preferred.

4. On behalf of the appellant it is argued that the Tribunal committed a serious error in rejecting his application to be represented by a person of his own choice instead of Fateh Singh, the Secretary of the Union and thereafter in making an award on the basis of the reference. It has to be noticed that on the date the application was made before the High Court the award had already been made and so