1. Petitioner – employer has called in question order dated 29.11.2011 Annexure-A passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer, Division-2 declaring five workmen listed therein as “Protected workmen” under section 33(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in W.P.No.1144/2012.

2. Petitioner – Union in W.P.No.12888/2006 is espousing the cause of 386 workmen has sought for quashing of the order dated 21.07.2005 passed in Reference No.83/1997 Annexure-H whereunder the reference made by the Trade Union came to be answered against workmen by rejecting the reference.

3. The Registry in W.P.1144/2012 has raised an objection as under:

“DCF of Rs.400/-to be paid, since the petitioner is challenging Annexure-A wherein five workmen are declared as “Protected workmen”.

On account of prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner to post the matter before court, it has been listed before this court for considering the office objection. In Writ Petition No.12888/2006, this court noticed on 1.2.2012 that petitioner-Trade Union is espousing the cause of 386 workmen and if the prayer made in the Writ Petition is granted it would result in monetary benefit accruing to each of the workmen and as such, they are required to pay court fee individually under Rule 7 of the Writ Proceedings Rules 1977.

4. Since the registry was repetitively raising the objection regarding payment of court fee in similar circumstances, learned members of the bar have prayed before this court to issue directions to registry not to raise said objection in view of similar objections having been over ruled by this court and as such said issue can be laid to rest. Hence, this court allowed the learned members of the bar to make their submissions on the issue.

5. I have heard the arguments advanced by Sriyuths K.Subba Rao, S.N. Murthy, K.Kasturi, M.C.Narasimhan, learned senior advocates assisted by other learned advocates of the bar. It is the contention of the senior advocates when the relief sought for is not individual and represents a common or joint interest payment of court fee independently does not arise when such orders are challenged in a writ petition. It is contended that under Rule 7(2) of the Writ Proceeding Rules when there is a petition filed based on a common or joint interest and not seeking any individual relief question of payment of separate court fee would not arise. He would submit that said rule deals only with a situation where only number of persons approached the court with a common or joint interest and not having separate and distinct interest and as such question of payment of court fee individually does not arise. It is the further submission only when number of petitioners approach the court, the said rule would be applicable and payment of court fee is not dependant on the number of respondents since the rule deals with only number of persons approaching the court. It is also contended that Rule 7 does not refer to individual disputes.

6. It is further contended that under industrial law the trade union represents the number of workmen and the Trade Union Act gives power to the Union for collective bargaining and contends that financial constraints come in the way of filing of individual petitions if they are made to pay court fees. It is also contended that under the Minimum Wages Act, a single application in respect of number of employees can be presented under section 20 and orders passed on such application if challenged there would not be necessity to pay separate or distinct court fee. It is also contended that under section 13 of the Trade Union Act, 1926 a union can sue or be sued as a juristic person and as such no separate or distinct interest would be involved so as to direct the trade union to pay the court fee in respect of its members and as such the learned advocates would pray for overruling the office objections.

7. They would rely upon the following judgments:

(i) 1981 (1) KLJ 505

(ii) ILR 1