JUDGMENT - KANTHARIA H.H., J.:---In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution what falls for my consideration is an important question of law as to the interpretation of the provisions of section 22(ii) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act').

2. The petitioner workman was an employee of the third respondent-company. He was charge-sheeted on 29-11-1980 on certain allegations of misconduct. A domestic enquiry was ordered to enquire into his alleged acts of misconduct which was fixed for hearing on 2-12-1980 and adjourned to 6-12-1980. It is the case of the petitioner that the requested the Enquiry Officer to allow him to be defended by one Talreja who claimed to be an office-bearer of the Bombay Mazdoor Union of which the petitioner was a member. It was also the case of the petitioner that the said Talreja was authorised to defend the members of his union at the domestic enquiries. The Enquiry Officer did not grant the request of the petitioner to allow him to be defended by the said Talreja. On consideration of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the company dismissed the petitioner on 28-1-1981.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal order, the petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No. 33 of 1981. In the Labour Court at Bombay presided over by the second respondent. He alleged in the complaint that by not allowing him to be defendant by Talreja the principles of natural justice were violated and thus dismissing him, the third respondent committed unfair and labour practice covered by Item I of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act. The learned Labour Judge was of the view that regard being had to the provisions of section 22(ii) of the MRTU and PULP Act, the petitioner was not entitled to be defended by Talreja at the domestic enquiry who was not a member of either a recognised union or a non-recognised union functioning in the undertaking of the third respondent. He accordingly held that the third respondent did not commit an act of unfair labour practice covered by Item I of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act more especially because the petitioner was given an opportunity by the Enquiry Officer to be defendant by any co-workman or a member of the union functioning in the undertaking of the third respondent. The learned Labour Judge accordingly by his judgment and order dated June 30, 1982 dismissed the petitioner's complaint of unfair labour practice.

4. Therefore, the petitioner filed Revision Application (ULP) No. 28 of 1982 in the Industrial Court at Bombay. The learned Member of the Industrial Court (first respondent) found no merits in the revision application on the same basis on which the learned Labour Judge had dismissed the unfair labour practice complaint of the petitioner and consequently dismissed the revision application by his judgment and order dated June 14, 1983.

5. Hence, the petitioner invoked the supervisory writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution by filing the present writ petition.

6. Dr. Kulkarni, appearing on behalf of the petitioner workman, submitted that in not allowing the petitioner to be defended by Talreja, at the domestic enquiry, who was an officer-bearer of an union of which the petitioner was a member, principles of natural justice were violated in the conduct of the domestic enquiry and that is how the third respondent committed unfair labour practice covered by Item 1(f) of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act. The submission of the learned Counsel is that under section 22(ii) of the MRTU and PULP Act, the petitioner had a right to be represented by a member of an unrecognised union at the domestic enquiry, the said union not functioning in the undertaking of the company notwithstanding.

7. Controverting these arguments, Mr. Rele, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent-company, submitted that under section

Click Here to Read the rest of this document