9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (12) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Ahmedahad is an undertaking in the Textile Processing Industry which was recognised as such vide Notification No. KH-SHMC/ ] 2724/RU dated September 13, 1974 issued by the Assistant Registrar, Bombay Industrial Relations Act in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 11(1) of the Act. Respondent No. 2 viz. the General Workers Union, Bhadra, Ahmedabad is a representative union of all the employees of the various undertakings registered by the Registrar as undertakings in the Textile Processing Industry in the local area of Ahmedabad City and city Taluka irrespective of the fact that the employees of any of the aforesaid undertakings may or may not be members of the representative union and is registered and recognised as such under the provisions of the Act. In 1975, the said union raised demands regarding wages, dearness allowance, washing allowance, supply of shoes, uniforms, and casual holidays. As the demands were -not agreed to, the dispute was taken in conciliation which culminated in an amicable settlement between the parties on the basis whereof an award was made by the Industrial Court on September 29, 1975. On December 22, 1975, respondent No. 2 gave a not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... representative union under the Act. The reminders sent by the new union on June 21, 1976, June 29, 1976 and July 2, 1976 were also ignored by, respondent No. 1. On July 6, 1976, the new union suggested a few names of its members to respondent No. 1 for the purposes of negotiation and requested it to fix a date for that purpose before July 10, 1976. As the attempt at negotiation also failed to evoke a favourable response from respondent No. 1, the new union made a representation to Labour Commissioner on July 10, 1976. A further representation made by the workmen to the Management of respondent No. 1 on August 15, 1976 which was followed by representations to the Governor of Gujarat on August 18, 1976 and August 25, 1976 also failed to elicit any response from respondent No. 1. Thereupon, the new union gave a strike notice on September 2, 1976 pursuant thereto 131 employees of respondent No. 1 went on strike on September 24, 1976, as already stated. 3. On October 4, 1976, the appellant and five other employees of respondent No, 1 made an application to the Labour Court praying that they may be impleaded as parties to the aforesaid proceedings initiated by respondent No. 1 and all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ployees for being impleaded as parties to the aforesaid application of respondent No. 1 under Section 79(1) (4) read with Section 78(1)A(C) and Section 97(1) of the Act is erroneous and cannot be sustained on a true interpretation of Section 80 of the Act which confers a right on every individual employee to appear before the Labour Court and contest on application under Section 79 of the Act which may threaten to adversely affect his rights and interests. Mr. Dutta has also urged that the application could not have been rejected in view of the two exceptions engrafted on Section 27 of the Act. Mr. Dutta has finally urged that in any event, the application ought to have been allowed and the individual employees permitted to appear and contest the aforesaid application of respondent No. 1 as the stand taken by the representative union in regard thereto was mala fide and against their interests. 5. Mr. Tarkunde and Mr. Chitale have, on the other hand, contended that it was respondent No. 2 alone, which was the representative union, and not the appellant or any other individual employee who had a right to appear and act in the aforesaid proceedings initiated by respondent No. 1 b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the representative of employees, the first part carves out three exceptions to the said general rule which are mentioned in Sections 32, 33 and 33-A of the Act. Whereas the last exception i.e. the one carved out by Section 33-A of the Act relates to proceedings where the dispute is between employees and employees, the other two exceptions mentioned in Sections 32 and 33 of the Act relate to proceedings in respect of certain other disputes. 10. The term 'representative of employees' as used in the above quoted Section 27-A of the Act is defined in Section 3(32) of the Act as meaning a representative of employees entitled to appear or act as such under Section 30. 11. This takes us to Section 30 of the Act. This section which sets out in preferential order the persons who are entitled to appear or act as representatives of employees in any industry in local area assigns the foremost position to the representative union. 12. Now a combined reading of Sections 80, 27-A, 30, 32 and 33 of the Act leaves no room for doubt that consistent with its avowed policy of preventing the exploitation of the workers and augmenting their bargaining power, the Legislature has clothe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... employees may have appeared but this permission cannot be granted where the representative union has appeared as a representative of employees. Section 33 which is the other exception allows an employee to appear through any person in certain proceedings only even though a representative of employees might have appeared; but here again it is subject to this that no one else, not even the employee who might have made the application, will have the right to appear if a Representative Union has put in appearance as the representative of employees. It is quite clear therefore that the scheme of the Act is that where a Representative Union appears in any proceeding under the Act, no one else can be allowed to appear not even the employee at whose instance the proceedings might have begun under Section 42(4). But where the appearance is by any representative of employees other than a Representative Union authorities under Section 32 can permit the employee to appear himself in all proceedings before them and further the employee is entitled to appear by any person in certain proceedings specified in Section 33. But whenever the Representative Union has made an appearance, even the employ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icial to their interests, their remedy lies in invoking the aid of the Registrar under Chapter HI of the Act and asking him to cancel the registration of the union. The following observations made in Girja, Shankar Kashi Ram v. The Gujarat Spinning Weaving Co. Ltd. (supra) are apposite in his connection :- But it is clear that bona fides or mala fides of the representative of employees can have nothing to do with the ban placed by Section 27A on the appearance of any one else except the representative of employees as defined in Section 30 and that if anyone else can appear in any proceeding we must find a provision in that behalf in either Section 32 or Section 33, which are the only exceptions to Section 27A. It may be noticed that there is no exception in Section 27A in favour of the employee, who might have made an application under Section 42(4), to appear on his own behalf and the ban which is placed by Section 27A will apply equally to such an employee. In order however to soften ' the rigour of the provisions of Section 27A, for it may well be that the representative of employees may not choose to appear in many proceedings started by an employee under Section 42( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
