Individual workmen have the right to represent their case independently of Unions before the Industrial Tribunal, even in the absence of the Unions, and this right is protected under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

( 1 ) 1. In this writ petition, an interim order of the learned Judge, First Industrial tribunal dated 17th September, 2003 is under challenge. This order is arising out of an application made by the petitioners under Rule 20d of the West Bengal industrial Disputes Rules, 1958, praying, inter alia, to add the workmen as parties in the proceeding and allow them to represent their case individually without getting it espoused by any of the Labour Unions. The Tribunal held that present workmen (eight in numbers) are already on record as their names appear in the list annexed to the order of reference itself. As such, the question of them on record as parties does not and cannot arise. It further held that since the case of the workmen is being espoused by the Union as incorporated in the order of reference, it cannot travel beyond the ambit of the order of reference. The application was ultimately rejected.

( 2 ) IT appears from the first paragraph of the order that the Unions were absent on repeated calls. The learned Advocate for the company was present. The learned Advocate for the workmen was also present.

( 3 ) THEREFORE, a pertaining question arises before this Court that when the unions are absent, the workmen can proceed with the matter before the Tribunal independently or not in the aforesaid circumstances. It has been argued at length on behalf of the management before this Court that by virtue of Rule 20d of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958, there is a scope of addition of parties to the proceeding but there is no scope of deletion of parties. According to me, such submission is not the subject-matter herein. The crux of the case is that in spite of being parties, if the Unions fail to appear or represent the case whether the workmen are entitled to represent their own case even in their absence having been party to the reference or not. The necessity of such representation, if refused - whether the workmen would be remediless or not. The first part of the order is militating with the last part of the order. The first part clearly says that the individual 8 workmen are very much parties to the order of reference and the last part says that the learned Judge of the First industrial Tribunal cannot travel beyond the ambit of such order of reference but the application is rejected. It is highly erroneous in nature. It should have been said that as because the individual workmen and the Unions both are very much parties to the order of reference, nothing could restrain them from expunging their cause before the Tribunal either independently or through the unions.

( 4 ) IN considering the question of independent representation by the workmen, law is not like the earlier one. Section 2a was inserted by way of amendment on 1st December, 1965, giving the right to any individual workman to raise an industrial dispute when the question of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination is/are the issue/issues. By West Bengal amendment in 1989 refusal of employment' become part and parcel of section 2a of the Act additionally. The refusal of employment has its wide connotation. It is to be remembered that before the West Bengal amendment in 1989, in the years 1987 and 1988 two other States introduced State amendments extending the scope of the section to any manner of dispute. Such States enormously extended the scope and it is expected that the State like ours should have adopted the same showing interest towards the poorer section of the people. It may be refusal in not giving employment. It may be not regularising the employment. It may be not giving adequate benefit of the employment. All such refusals are refusals of employment. But we helplessly see that we are more concerned about right of Union but not right of individual workman. Be that as it may, nomenclature 'refusal of employment' ipso facto, has got no meaning unless interpreted in the above manner. It has to be determi