WORKMEN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these Writ Petitions the petitioners is common union. At the instance of this union, six disputes between the management of 2nd respondent and the union had been referred under Section. 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') for adjudication. The disputes had been registered in the year 1991. Subsequently, the points of dispute had been altered and substituted by way of corrigendum. All the six disputes had been clubbed together and common evidence was recorded. The evidence of the workmen was over in the year 1993 and the evidence on the side of the management was completed in the year 1994. Thereafter, the union presented its arguments and the matter was posted for the arguments on the side of the management. Thus, the disputes had reached the state of disposal as hearing the arguments on the side of the management alone was pending. At that juncture, the proceedings took a different direction as the rival union, namely mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works Employees Association, had filed an application to implead it in the proceedings.

(2.) THE application for impleading was seriously opposed by the petitioner union. As a result of which, the application was rejected by the Tribunal by an order dated 15. 4. 1996. The said order was the subject matter of challenge in W. P. No. 12400/96 in this Court. The said Writ Petition was dismissed on 8. 7. 1996 but in paragraph 3 of the order it was observed as follows:-

(3.) THE main attack of petitioner union is that the Tribunal should not have accepted the alleged settlement between the management and the rival union and the awards passed are contrary to law. The petitioner alleges that the settlement arrived at was a collusive settlement and the Tribunal failed to take note of the same.