ABHILASH TAILORS Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The important question that arises for determination in this original petition is whether an Industrial Tribunal has got jurisdiction to implead workers when the Union which represented them did not pursue the matter and was declared ex parte. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm engaged in tailoring. It is said that this concern was opened on 4-6-1975 and closed on 6-6-1978. There were 13 employees in this concern. According to the petitioner, the closure was due to the non cooperation of the workers under the leadership of the second respondent. There were protest and strike following the closure of the business concern and after conciliation before the District Labour Officer, Alwaye, and on the basis of a report made by him to the Government, the Government was pleased to refer the following issues for adjudication:

(2.) The petitioner seeks to quash Ext. P1 order on the ground that the order is one passed without jurisdiction as the individual workers have no locus standi to get themselves impleaded when they are represented by a union; that the petitioners were members of the second respondent union and as such the ex parte order was binding on them; and that in an industrial dispute individual workers have no place or status and that as long as they are represented by Union, the Union alone can represent them. The counsel also contended that the impleadment is against the very spirit of collective, bargaining and also against the principles recognised in S.36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter called the Act.

(3.) The learned advocate appearing for the workers on the other hand, submitted that under S.18 of the Act the Tribunal has power to summon parties to appear in the proceedings as party to the dispute and in any view, the Tribunal has got inherent power to implead new parties and therefore the order has only to be sustained.