The burden of proof on the union to espouse the cause of the workmen must be within the scope of the reference, and issues framed by the Tribunal should not lead to inordinate delay in the adjudication of the dispute.

KUMAR RAJARATNAM, J.

( 1 ) THE Writ Petition is taken up with the consent of parties.

( 2 ) THE petitioner-union representing 64 workmen seeks to challenge the legal validity of the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal dated December 13, 1995. The Government of Karnataka by its order dated January 10, 1983 held that an Industrial dispute exists between the petitioner and the management of Respondents 2 and 3 and made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal on the following points of dispute:

"are the 64 workmen as detailed in the Annexure appended to this Government Order working in the Manipal Power Press, Manipal represented by the Manipal Printers and Publishers employees Association, Udupi, justified in demanding that they should also be considered as employees (Newspaper Employees) of the Manipal Publishers and Printers (P.) Ltd. , Manipal, from the date of their appointments with all consequential benefits arising out of various Wage boards recommendations and awards for journalists. If hot, to what other relief these employees are entitled to. "

( 3 ) A perusal of the points of dispute makes it clear that the dispute was between the Union on one side and M/s. Manipal Publishers and Printers (P) Ltd. , and Manipal Power Press, on the other side. Unfortunately, although there is a reference to the Manipal Power Press, notice was not sent to Manipal Power Press and the matter before the Tribunal went on for some time till manipal Power Press was impleaded by an order dated February 21, 1991. All this controversy arose because Manipal Power Press although was a party to the points of dispute in the reference did not participate in the proceedings before the Tribunal till it was impleaded as a party in february 1991. To understand the scope of controversy between the union on the one hand and the Manipal power Press on the other hand, it may be necessary to briefly refer to the facts of the case. According to the claim of the petitioner Manipal Printers and Publishers Pvt. Ltd. , (hereinafter referred to as the Second Party--management) and Manipal Power Press, Manipal (hereinafter referred to as the impleaded party-management) are jointly together and were engaged in the production and distribution of News Papers. The employees employed by them are governed by the provisions of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of service) and Miscellaneous Provisions, Act, 1955. The grievance of the union is that though the workmen were governed by the Act, they have not been paid their wages in accordance with the act and the wage rates fixed on the basis of the Palekar Award and Bachavat Wage Board recommendations. It is this Act of non-compliance of the wage structure that is the root of the dispute between the petitioners and the second party--management and the impleaded party-management. The petitioner union raised a dispute claiming that they be paid different wage rate as per orders of the Government. The Government referred the matter and in the points of dispute both the union as well as the second party management and the impleaded party management were the parties to the dispute. In other words, both Respondents 2 and 3 were connected with the order of reference.

( 4 ) THE workmen filed their claim statements and the second party- management filed their objections. As stated earlier, due to some administrative error notice was not sent to the impleaded party management although they were clearly connected in the points of dispute. A preliminary objection was taken by the second party- management stating that the petitioner union did not espouse the cause of the workmen. Whether it was necessary or permissible to raise such a preliminary objection, was not clear. Since the points of dispute itself refer to the fact that the workmen are represented by the union it was not necessary in my opinion to have given a finding on the preliminary issue that the union espouses the cause of the workmen. L

Click Here to Read the rest of this document