HAR PRASAD ELECTRIC PRESS Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Our learned brother Seth dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by the appellant, and it is urged before us that his decision is incorrect because the award was manifestly erroneous in law.

(2.) It is contended that the application initialing conciliation proceedings was signed by an officer of the Press Workers Union and that the provisions of Section 6-1(3) prohibited the making of that application by that officer inasmuch as on the date when the application was made the Union had not been registered for a period of two years. We are of the opinion that this contention cannot be accepted. The provisions of Section 6-1 provide for representation of the parties in proceedings before a Board, Labour Court or Tribunal. The Board has been defined by Section 2(d) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes act as a Conciliation Board constituted under Clause (d) of Section 3. According to the order contained in notification No. 738-ST (XXXVI-A-112-ST) 1957 dated December 31, 1957, which was made under Section 3(d) of the Act, a Conciliation Board is constituted only after an application for conciliation proceedings has been made before the Conciliation Officer. It is upon the constitution of the Board that the question of representation in proceedings before it arises. There is no Board in existence at the time when the application for conciliation proceedings is made. Accordingly the provisions of Section 6-I do not apply to the making of an application for conciliation proceedings .

(3.) Moreover, even if the application for conciliation proceedings was made by a person not competent to make it, it will not affect the validity of the proceedings before the Labour Court and of the award made by it. The proceedings before the Labour Court are brought into existence by reason of an order under Section 4-K made by the State Government referring an industrial dispute for adjudication. The State Government has discretion whether or not to make the order for adjudication. "It may decline to make the order even though the conciliation proceedings have failed. There is no continuity between the conciliation proceedings before the Board and the proceedings before the Labour Court, and any defect in the proceedings before the Board will not affect the validity of the proceedings before the Labour Court.