1977 (12) TMI 145 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Right of individual employees to appear or act in proceedings under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946.
2. Legality of the Labour Court's order rejecting the application of individual employees to be impleaded as parties.
3. Interpretation of Section 80 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act.
4. Applicability of exceptions under Sections 32 and 33 of the Act.
5. Alleged mala fide actions of the representative union.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Right of Individual Employees to Appear or Act in Proceedings:
The primary issue revolves around whether individual employees have the right to appear or act in proceedings under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, when a representative union has already entered appearance. The court emphasized that the legislative intent behind the Act is to encourage collective bargaining and ensure industrial peace and harmony. The Act's provisions are designed to prevent individual employees from appearing or acting in proceedings if a representative union is present. This is consistent with the policy of augmenting the bargaining power of labor and preventing exploitation.

2. Legality of the Labour Court's Order:
The Labour Court's order dated October 6, 1976, rejected the application of individual employees to be impleaded as parties in the proceedings initiated by the employer. The court upheld this order, stating that Section 27-A of the Act imposes a general rule prohibiting individual employees from appearing or acting in any proceeding under the Act except through the representative of employees. The court found no merit in the appellant's contention that the Labour Court's order was erroneous.

3. Interpretation of Section 80:
Section 80 of the Act was interpreted to mean that the Labour Court may permit affected parties to appear in the manner provided by Sections 80-A or 80-C, but this discretion is subject to the provisions of Chapter V. Chapter V emphasizes that only the representative union can appear and act for the employees, thereby precluding individual employees from doing so.

4. Applicability of Exceptions under Sections 32 and 33:
The court examined Sections 32 and 33, which provide exceptions to the general rule in Section 27-A. However, these exceptions are not applicable when a representative union has entered appearance. The court cited previous judgments to reinforce that individual employees cannot appear or act in proceedings if the representative union is present. The court concluded that the appellant's reliance on these exceptions was misplaced.

5. Alleged Mala Fide Actions of the Representative Union:
The appellant contended that the representative union was acting mala fide and against the interests of the employees. The court dismissed this argument, stating that the mala fides or bona fides of a representative union are irrelevant under Sections 27-A, 32, and 33. The remedy for employees who find their representative union acting prejudicially lies in invoking the aid of the Registrar to cancel the union's registration. The court reiterated that the Act imposes an absolute ban on individual employees appearing in proceedings where the representative union is present.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Labour Court and High Court's decisions. The court affirmed that individual employees have no locus standi to appear or act in proceedings under the Act when a representative union has entered appearance. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.