Back
High Court Of Calcutta
MONORANJAN MALLICK
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. - Appellant
Versus
PRESIDING OFFICER - Respondent
Matter 4458 Of 1988
Decided On : 07/07/1989
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - REPRESENTATION OF EMPLOYER - SECTION 36(2) OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - INTERPRETATION - WHETHER ORDINARY MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF AN EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION CAN REPRESENT THE EMPLOYER - COURT HELD THAT THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING THE EMPLOYER TO BE REPRESENTED BY TWO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS OF THE EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION AS THEY WERE NOT OFFICERS OF THE ASSOCIATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of the Employers' Association of India, engaged two of its Executive Committee members to represent it in an industrial dispute before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta. The workmen's union objected to the representation by the Executive Committee members, contending that they were not officers of the Association. The Tribunal upheld the objection and refused to allow the employer to be represented by them.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the learned Tribunal was justified in refusing the employer to be represented by two Executive Committee members of the Employers' Association as they were not officers of the Association. The Court observed that the term 'officer' in section 36(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has not been defined and that the definition of 'officer' in the Societies Registration Act cannot be used for the purpose of interpreting the same expression in the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court further observed that the learned Tribunal did not commit any illegality in taking the dictionary meaning of the word 'officer' for the purpose of considering whether ordinary members of the Executive Committee of the Employers' Association could represent the employer.
Issues: Whether an ordinary member of the Executive Committee of an Employers' Association can represent the employer in an industrial dispute before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta under section 36(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the learned Tribunal was justified in refusing the employer to be represented by two Executive Committee members of the Employers' Association as they were not officers of the Association. The Court observed that the term 'officer' in section 36(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has not been defined and that the definition of 'officer' in the Societies Registration Act cannot be used for the purpose of interpreting the same expression in the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court further observed that the learned Tribunal did not commit any illegality in taking the dictionary meaning of the word 'officer' for the purpose of considering whether ordinary members of the Executive Committee of the Employers' Association could represent the employer.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
( 1 ) - The petitioner, namely, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , has filed the writ petition praying for a writ of Mandamus calling upon the respondents and each one of them to forthwith recall, rescind and/or to withdraw the order dated 9. 9. 88 passed by the Respondent No. 1 the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta and to forbear from giving any effect and/or further effect to the said impugned order and/on taking any steps in pursuance of the said impugned order and also for a Writ of Prohibition calling upon the respondents and each one of. them not to give any effect and/or further effect to the impugned order dated 9. 9. 88 and to forbear from taking any steps to the impugned orders and some consequential relief.
( 2 ) AT the time of admitting of the application, the interim order has been passed staying operation of the order dated 9. 9. 88 till the disposal of the writ petition.
( 3 ) THE facts which are necessary for disposal of the writ petition may be briefly stated as follows: the Government of India, ministry of Labour by an order of reference dated 24th/26th February, 1988 referred a purported industrial dispute before the Presiding Officer, Central Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta for adjudication of the issue as mentioned in paragraph 18 of the writ petition. After receipt of the said order of reference the Respondent No. 2 being the workmen represented by Petroleum Employees Union, Eastern Branch, entered appearance and filed a written statement. The petitioner appeared before the Respondent No. 1 through its association, namely, The Employer's Association of India of which the petitioner is a member end the said Association has authorised two of its Executive Committee members, namely, Dr Monotosh Mukherjee and Sri. M. N. Kar of the said Association to represent the petitioner before the Tribunal in accordance with the provision of section 37 of the Industrial Disputes Act 25. 8. 88 the petitioner appeared before the learned Tribunal in accordance with the provision of section 37 of the Industrial Disputes Act. On 25. 8. 88 the petitioner appeared before the learned Tribunal through two of its Executive Committee members of the said Association of which the petitioner is a member and the said two Executive Committee members engaged by the company had also filed a power of Attorney before: the Tribunal on 25. 8. 88. The said Executive Committee members filed a written Statement-cum-Rejoinder and other petition on behalf of the company and served copies of the same on the representative of the Union. Thereafter the Respondent No. 2 namely, Union filed an objection petition on 25. 8. 88, inter alia, alleging that the Corporation has now again tried to bring in the lawyers in the name of the Employers Association and/or Federation and/or under different garbs which is colourable, motivated, bad and illegal and submitted before the Learned Tribunal that the petitioner company be directed not to bring in any lawyer to represent itself before the Hon'ble Tribunal either as a practising lawyer or in any other colourable manner as attempted and the same is being objected by the Union.
( 4 ) THE petitioner on 9. 9. 88 duly filed its objection in the said petition. The petitioner, inter alia, stated that the petitioner is a member of the Employers Association of India having its office at No. 42/22, C. N. Roy Road, Calcutta-39 who has engaged two of its Executive Committee members, to represent the petitioner in the above mentioned case before the learned Tribunal in accordance with the provision of section 36 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such the Union has no right whatsoever to object to the appearance of the two Executive Committee members of the Employers Association of India before this Tribunal, The petitioner has also referred in the objection petition the decision of the Supreme Court in Paradeep Port Trust v. Their Workmen, reported in 1976 (11)
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
