ENERCON LTD Vs. KISHOR B PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since a narrow controversy is involved in the above petition, Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties is made returnable forthwith and heard.

(2.) It is the case of the said 11 workmen that they are the elected workmen of the Petitioner-Company and that they do not agree with the long term settlement which was declared by the Management and that they have informed the Management that their charter of demands should be included in the settlement. It is further their case that the settlement has been arrived at by the Petitioner-Company unilaterally without involving them in any discussion etc. As indicated above, the matter was in conciliation and on the failure report of the Conciliation Officer that the dispute has been referred for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Daman.

(3.) In the said Reference, which has been numbered as Reference IT No. 27/2012, an application for interim relief was filed by the said 11 workmen. The interim relief claimed was that that they should be granted an interim wages increase of Rs. 6,500/- per month. In the said Reference, an application was moved by the Petitioner-Company questioning the locus standi of the 11 workmen to represent the other workmen of the Petitioner-Company. It is the case of the Petitioner-Company that the 11 workmen are not the authorized representatives of other workmen inasmuch as they have not been so elected by the workmen. The Petitioner-Company applied to the Tribunal that its application for deciding the preliminary issue as regards the locus standi of the said 11 workmen should be heard prior in point of time to the application for the interim reliefs. In support of its application, the Petitioner-Company has relied upon various judgments of this Court as well as the Apex Court that when a jurisdictional point is raised, the same ought to be tried at the threshold. The Tribunal, as can be seen from the impugned order, has in a way disposed of the said application of the Petitioner-Company by observing that since the issue is about the survival of the workmen, the application for interim relief would have to be decided first.