9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a delinquent is entitled to be represented by an office bearer of another Trade Union not functioning within the undertaking. 2. Whether refusal to permit such representation violates principles of natural justice. 3. Interpretation of relevant statutory provisions and Standing Orders. Summary: Issue 1: Representation by an Office Bearer of Another Trade Union The primary issue in this appeal was whether a delinquent employee is entitled to be represented by an office bearer of another Trade Union, not a member of either a recognised or non-recognised union within the undertaking, despite the statutory limitations in the certified Standing Orders and Clause (ii) of Section 22 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (the Act). The High Court answered affirmatively, reasoning that for a domestic enquiry to be fair and impartial, the delinquent should be allowed representation by a person of their choice, even if the representative is an outsider, to uphold principles of natural justice. Issue 2: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice The High Court quashed the dismissal order, stating that refusal to allow the delinquent to be defended by Talraja, an office bearer of the Bombay Mazdoor Union, violated principles of natural justice. The High Court remitted the matter to the Labour Court to decide on the merits of the misconduct charges. However, the Supreme Court held that the Enquiry Officer was justified in refusing Talraja's representation since he was not a member of a recognised or unrecognised union within the establishment, as required by Section 22(ii) of the Act and the Certified Standing Orders. Issue 3: Interpretation of Statutory Provisions and Standing Orders The Act provides for the recognition of trade unions and defines the rights of recognised and unrecognised unions. Section 22(ii) allows officers, members of the office staff, and members of any union (other than a recognised union) authorised by the State Government to appear on behalf of any of its members in any domestic or departmental inquiry held by the employer. The Supreme Court noted that the Standing Orders, which form part of the terms and conditions of service, allowed representation only by a clerk or a workman from the same department as the delinquent. The Court concluded that the Enquiry Officer's refusal to allow Talraja's representation was legally justified and did not violate principles of natural justice. Conclusion The Supreme Court held that the right to be represented through counsel or agent is not an absolute right and can be controlled, restricted, or regulated by statute, rules, or Standing Orders. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed the Labour Court to drop the proceedings as infructuous if not already disposed of.
|
