( 1 ) THE principal question raised in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether a certain labour federation is entitled to represent workmen in a number of pending industrial disputes. The District Labour Federation, Pilibhit, is the petitioner. Sri Bachan Singh who is the vice-President of the District Labour Federation, Pilibhit, has filed an affidavit on behalf of the petitioner.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the affidavit there exists at Pilibhit a labour union known as Pilibhit Mill Labour union. It has been registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926. The District Labour federation, Pilibhit, has also been registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926. There have been a number of industrial disputes between L. H. Sugar Factories and Oil Mills (Private), ltd. , Pilibhit, and their workmen. Annexures B and C to the affidavit are two lists of such disputes. Cases mentioned in annexure B are pending with Government for orders. Cases mentioned in annexure C are pending before the Regional Conciliation Officer, Bareilly. In all these cases the District Labour Federation, Pilibhit, and the Pilibhit Sugar Mill Labour Union are arrayed as parties. But on 9 April 1958 the Regional Conciliation Officer, Bareilly, refused the right of representation to the petitioner on the ground that, as a result of amendment of a certain rule, the right of representation has been taken away. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the opposite parties [the State of Uttar Pradesh, Regional Conciliation Officer, Bareilly, Labour commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, and L. H. Sugar Factories and Oil Mills (Private), Ltd. , Pilibhit be directed not to interfere with the petitioners right of representation.

( 3 ) THE petitioners claim has been opposed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and the mills. Sri B. C. Agarwal, who is manager of the mills, filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of opposite party 4. According to Para. 7 of this counter-affidavit, there is at Pilibhit a labour union of ten years standing. That union is known as L. H. Sugar Factories Mazdoor Union, Pilibhit. The union has large membership. But recently some persons started a rival body known as Pilibhit Sugarcane labour Union.

( 4 ) SRI Satish Narain Saxena, Regional Conciliation Officer, Allahabad, filed a separate affidavit on behalf of opposite parties 1, 2 and 3. Rejoinder affidavits were filed on behalf of the petitioner.

( 5 ) IN order to decide whether the petitioner federation is entitled to represent workmen or appear in the pending disputes, it is necessary to examine the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial disputes Act and rules framed under the Act. The principal Act is Uttar Pradesh Act No. XXVIII of 1947. The Act has been amended from time to time. Section 23 of the Act confers power upon the State Government to make rules. These rules have also been amended from time to time.

( 6 ) THE principal Act was amended by Uttar Pradesh Act No. I of 1957. This amendment introduced a provision for representation of parties in industrial disputes. This new provision is contained in Section 61 of the Act. Section 61 has been divided into three subsections. Sub-section (1) of Section 61 states: subject to the provisions of Sub-sections (2) and (3) the parties to an industrial dispute may be represented before a board, labour court or tribunal in the manner prescribed. Sub-section (2) lays down that a legal practitioner shall not be allowed to appear before such tribunals except with the consent of the opposite party and leave of the tribunal. Sub-section (3)of Section 61 originally stood thus: no officer of a union shall be entitled to represent any party unless a period of two years bas elapsed since its registration under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 : provided that this Sub-section shall not apply to an officer of any federation of unions: and provided further that such a union has been registered for one trade only. Section 61 of the Act