V. D. BHARGAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a writ petition filed by the Industrial Employees Union through its General Secretary, against the State of Uttar, Pradesh, the Adjudicator at Kanpur, Messrs. Cawnpore Tannery limited, and the Electric Inspector to Government Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. The prayer in the writ petition is that the order of the Adjudicator dated the 20th of May, 1957, be quashed, a direction be issued to the Electric Inspector to Government of Uttar Pradesh not to enforce the award given by the Adjudicator; a further direction be issued to the Government of Uttar Pradesh not to enforce the award dated 20th of May, 1957; and Sri Abdul Rashid Wire-man be given compensation.

( 2 ) ABDUL Rashid was working as a wire-man in the concern of respondent No. 3, Messrs. Kanpur tannery Limited. He was working as an electric wire-man and his licence used to be renewed from time to time. For the year 1954 the licences was sent to the Assistant Electric Inspector to government for renewal along with the forwarding letter of respondent No. 3, but his licence was not renewed and it was cancelled on the 21st July, 1954. After the cancellation of the licence under the rules framed under the Electricity Act a wire-man cannot work as an electric wire-man in any concern if he does not hold a licence. Therefore, the services of Abdul Rashid were terminated. This matter appears to have been taken up by the industrial Employees Union, petitioner, and the matter was referred to the Adjudicator. The issue before the Adjudicator was whether the employers have wrongfully and/or unjustifiably discharged Shri Abdul Rashid? If so, to what relief is the workman entitled? The Adjudicator came to the conclusion that the workman had been rightly discharged and he was not entitled to any relief. The writ petition has been filed challenging this order on the ground that he was entitled to retrenchment compensation. The order was also challenged on the ground that the cancellation of the licence was unjustified and, therefore, the Electric Inspector to Government should be directed to renew the licence of Sri Abdul Rashid.

( 3 ) A preliminary objection has been taken to the maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that in a writ petition it is the individual or a corporation whose rights are affected, who can come to this Court. Any other association cannot espouse the cause of the person who has been injured. The second ground taken is that the Industrial Employees Union had been registered as a trade Union not for leather, but as miscellaneous. There were at that time at least four other Unions of leather representing leather industry. They were Cawnpore Tannery Employees Union Kanpur Tannery and Leather Workers Union, chamra Mazdoor Panchayat and Kanpur Chamra Mill Karmachari Union. It was contended that an Union, only of the trade to which this worker be- longs, is the proper Union to represent and on that score also the present petitioner has no right to represent the employee.

( 4 ) THERE can be no doubt that so far as this case is concerned, it is the individual right of Abdul rashid which had been affected. No other person in the whole firm of the Kanpur Tannery limited is in any way affected. The question, therefore, is that in such circumstances can the petitioner Union file a writ petition?

( 5 ) ON behalf of the petitioner it has been argued that it is only an industrial dispute which can go before an industrial court. If it were an individual dispute it would not be an industrial dispute and, therefore, in the industrial court, it is necessary that it should be taken up by the workmen of that industry or by some trade union and if it is necessary for the purpose of industrial dispute, that an Union should take its cause, then it should be deemed that it is the Union and the Union alone which would be the party even in the writ petition and not the individual. It was further contended, that, if this view is not accepted, it might lea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document