Judgment

DUA, J.: The workmen of M/s. Delhi Cloth and General Mills, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi, have appealed to this court by special leave from the award of the Additional Industrial Tribuanal, Delhi, dated February 17, 1966 holding that Shibban Lal was bound by the settlement dated June 9, 1965 and, therefore, there was no industrial dispute on the date of reference which could be referred for adjudication.

2. The facts necessary for the purpose of this appeal may now be briefly stated. The Chief Commissioner, Delhi by means of an order dated September 9, 1965 referred the dispute in controversy to the Additional Industrial Tribunal, the order of references being in the following terms:

"Where as from a report submitted by the Conciliation Officer, Delhi under section 12 (4) of the "Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it appears that an industrial dispute exists between the management of M/s. Delhi Cloth and General Mills, Ltd., Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi and its workmen and Shri Shibban Lal and the said dispute has been take up by the D. C. M. (City Shop) Karamchari Union, 1121, Chatta Madan Gopal, Maliwara, Chandni Chowk, Delhi."

3. Before the Additional Industrial Tribunal the Management had raised various preliminary objections including the objection that Kapra Karamchari Sangh (hereafter called the Sangh) was not competent to take up the case of Shri Shibban Lal, and that the D. C. M. (City Shop) Karamchari Union (hereinafter called the Union), which had originally taken up the cause of workmen, having agreed by the settlement dated June 9, 1965 not to prosecute his case, withdrew its support to his cause with the result that the dispute relating to the dismissal of Shibban Lal was not an industrial dispute. It was further averred that Shibban Lal was bound by the act of his representatives who has made the settlement dated June 9. 1965, and was, therefore, estopped from challenging the same.

4. On issue No. 1, the Tribunal held that although the Sangh had been (On these objections four issues were framed - Ed.) and were taken up for decision in the first instance.

1. Has the Kapra Karamchari Sangh no locus standi to file the statement of claim?

2. Is the reference incompetent because of settlement dated June 9, 1965 between the D. C. M. (City Shop) Karamchari union and Management?

3. Is the dispute not an industrial dispute?

4. Is Shibban Lal estopped from raising the present dispute?

5. On issue No. 1, the Tribunal held that although the Sangh had been merely authorised to represent Shibban Lal and was not a party entitled to file the statement of claim in its own right, neverthless the claim filed by it was to be deemed to be on behalf of Shibban Lal who had agreed to be represented by the Sangh. Issues Nos. 2 and 4 were discussed together and the Tribunal held that the settlement dated June 9, 1965, which was signed on behalf of workmen by the Secretary and Vice-President of the Union was not arrived at by unauthorised persons. The said settlement was, therefore, held binding on persons who were parties thereto and Shibban Lal being a member of the Union was bound by it. In force of that settlement, the Tribunal felt that there was no industrial dispute which could be referred for adjudication on the date of reference.

6. In this Court on behalf of the respondent, the Management of M/s. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. a preliminary objection was raised to the competency of the present appeal . It was contended by Shri Dephtary that the appeal was presented in this Court by the Sangh which was neither a party to the industrial dispute before the Tribunal, nor did it espouse the cause of Shibban Lal s dismissal. Shibban Lal, according to the submission, being a party affected could certainly appeal but not the Sangh. It was added that Shibban Lal being the solitary employee of the respondent, who was the member of the Sangh the latter was not only disentitled to espouse Shibban Lal s cause but as a matter of fact it did not do so; the Sa