DASTGIR ALAM MULLA Vs. MYSORE PETROCHEMICALS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The petitioner challenges the order dated 14-8-2006 passed in Complaint (ULP) No.150 of 2006 by the Industrial Court, Thane whereby the application, filed by the petitioner seeking for direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to be represented by an office bearer of the Trade Union during the course of the inquiry against the petitioner, has been dismissed.

(2.) Few facts relevant for the decision are that the petitioner joined the services in the respondent-company as a plant-operator on 16-11-1992. After having issued the order of suspension on 29-11-2004, a chargesheet was issued and the inquiry was initiated against the petitioner on 25-12-2004 by appointing Shri D.S. Nimbalkar, a practising Advocate, as the management s representative. The petitioner sought to appoint Shri Patki, Vice-President of the Trade Union of which the petitioner is the member, to be his defence representative in the said inquiry. The said request of the petitioner was rejected by the inquiry officer on the ground that the Vice-President is not empowered to represent workmen in terms of the Constitution of the Trade Union to which the petitioner belongs to. The petitioner thereupon filed Complaint (ULP) No.112 of 2005 wherein interim relief came to be rejected and which was sought to be challenged by way of Writ Petition No.3307 of 2005. However, the same was withdrawn in March, 2005. Thereupon the Trade Union proceeded to amend its Constitution whereby Clause 11(B-A) was sought to be amended by including two posts for Vice-President in the managing committee of the Trade Union and the same was effected by passing necessary resolution in that regard in the general body meeting of the Trade Union held on 23-1-2006. The amendment which was sought to be carried out in terms of the resolution was forwarded to the Registrar of the Trade Unions, Mumbai under the letter dated 27-2-2006. Consequent thereto, the petitioner again moved an application before the inquiry officer on 11-3-2006 seeking to appoint the Vice-President of the managing committee of the Trade Union to represent the petitioner in the inquiry proceedings. However, by order dated 8-4-2006 the inquiry officer rejected the said request. Thereupon, another application was filed by the petitioner on 29-4-2006 requesting the inquiry officer to allow another Vice-President Shri Pagade to represent the petitioner in the course of the inquiry proceedings. The same was also disallowed by the inquiry officer on 4-5-2006. The petitioner thereafter filed Complaint (ULP) No.150 of 2006 before the Industrial Court, Thane wherein the application for interim relief was also filed for direction to the respondent to allow the petitioner to be represented by any member of the managing committee of the Union. After hearing the parties, the same came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 14-8-2006.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order, submitted that once the provisions of the Standing Orders comprised under Clause 25(4) of Schedule-I thereto clearly entitles the workmen to be represented by any office bearer of the Trade Union and since the Constitution of the Trade Union of which the petitioner is the member, provides the managing committee to include two Vice-Presidents and as the petitioner had requested the inquiry officer to allow the petitioner to be represented by one of the Vice-Presidents, there was a clear denial of the statutory right to the petitioner and in spite of the fact that it was brought to the notice of the Industrial Court, the latter clearly failed to exercise its jurisdiction to protect the interest of the workman and thereby gave an opportunity to the employer to indulge in unfair labour practices. Drawing attention to the amendment which has been carried out to the Constitution of the Trade Union, he submitted that the fact that such amendment had been carried out by holding necessary general body meeting, that such an amendment had been registered and that it provided for the managing committee to include two Vice-Presidents, were not in dispute and therefore taking into consideration the provisions of Clause 25(4) of Schedule-I of the Standing Orders, the Industrial Court could not have refused the relief asked for. Denial of the relief asked for has virtually resulted in denial of opportunity to exercise the statutory right by the workman. He has also drawn attention to the Notification No.1781/48, dated 26-5-1952 while contending that the said Registrar of Trade Unions is also a Central Registrar of Trade Unions in cases where the jurisdiction of the Trade Unions extends beyond one State and further that the Registrar of Trade Unions for the State Trade Unions is the one where the head-office of the Trade Union exists and it is not in dispute that the head-office of the Trade Union of which the petitioner is the member, is situated in Mumbai. He has also relied upon the decision in the matter of Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. Their Workmen, reported in AIR 1969 SC 306 as well as The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni and others, reported in AIR 1983 SC 109.