The main legal point established in the judgment is the exclusive right of a representative Union to represent employees in pending proceedings under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, along with the protection of pending proceedings under Section 7 of the General Clauses Act.

(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)

1. The applicant â third party, namely, Navjagrut Labour Union, a Regd. Union under the Trade Unions Act, 1956 represented by its General Secretary Shri Manoj R. Rajput, who was duly authorised by 106 employees, has filed this application seeking permission of this Court to be joined as respondent No. 3 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1164 of 1998 and also in Special Civil Application No. 8030 of 1997.

2. The application was opposed by the opponent No. 1 â original appellant â original petitioner i.e. Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited. An affidavit-in-reply as well as written submissions were filed during the course of hearing. Similarly, application is also opposed by opponent No. 2 â orig. respondent No. 1 i.e. Electricity Mazdoor Sabha, a representative Union. An affidavit-in-reply is filed on 29.03.2007. The applicant has also filed an affidavit on 15.03.2007 along with the affidavits of more than 200 employees stating that they have left the Electricity Mazdoor Sabha and have withdrawn their authority to proceed with the present matter and/or to settle the same on their behalf. The applicant has also filed written submissions during the course of hearing.

3. Heard Mr. T.R. Mishra, learned advocate appearing for the applicant and Mr. Sudhir I. Nanavati, learned Senior Counsel for opponent No. 1 and Mr. A. K. Clerk, learned advocate appearing for the opponent No. 2.

4. It is the case of the applicant that the original dispute was espoused by the opponent No. 2 which was the representative Union functioning in the establishment of Ahmedabad Electricity Company. The dispute was with regard to regularisation of 360 employees and the said reference was registered as Reference (IC) No. 133 of 1992. The award was passed by the Industrial Court which came to be challenged by the opponent No. 1 Company by filing Special Civil Application No. 8030 of 1997. The Learned Single Judge upheld the award which is under challenge in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1164 of 1998.

5. During the pendency of the reference, out of 360 workmen, only 238 workmen remained to get the benefit of the award. Others have either left or expired. Out of 238 employees, who are presently working, 200 employees have left the original espousing Union and filed individual affidavit that they were not the members of the Electricity Mazdoor Sabha and that they have joined the applicant Union i.e. Navjagrut Labour Union.

6. Mr. T. R. Mishra, learned advocate appearing for the applicant has submitted that the opponent No. 1 in the present application has filed detailed affidavit opposing the said application filed by the applicant Union relying upon certain settlement and that the Company has been highlighting to have agreed with the representative Union for payment of Rs.132 Crores. Copy of the said settlement has also been shown to this Court. He has further submitted that the opponent No. 1 Company has not disclosed the fact that the said amount of Rs. 132 Crores has not been paid to any of the workmen involved in the present proceeding. Whatever benefit has been given, it is given to the permanent employees whereas the employees in the present proceeding are the contract labour working for more than 30 years and they have not been paid anything.

7. Mr. Mishra has further submitted that the sole question that needs to be determined is whether, after repeal of the provisions of representative character from the Bombay Industrial Relations Act ('BIR Act' for short) whether the establishment still continues to be governed by the provisions of the BIR Act in relation to Ahmedabad Electricity Company. If the contention of the opponent No. 1 Company is accepted that the establishment even after the issue of Notification i.e. 19.04.2005 continues to be governed under the provisions of BIR Act, the repeal Act becomes redundant. Section 7 of the General Clauses Act cannot be interpreted to mean that the establishment even aft