SANDOZ INDIA LIMITED Vs. ASSOCIATION OF CHEMICAL WORKERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Returnable forthwith. Ms. Buch waives service for respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is formal party and, therefore, service is dispensed with. By consent, writ petition is heard finally at this stage.

(2.) THE only question involved in the present writ petition filed at the instance of the employer petitioner Sandoz (India) Limited is whether the Industrial Tribunal Mumbai erred in upholding the objection raised by the respondent No. 1 union to appearance of the advocate for the employer first party in the reference before the said Court.

(3.) SHORT facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are that upon charter of demands submitted by the union to the employer, the employer refused to have any negotiation or discussions with union. Conciliation failed and the industrial dispute was referred by the appropriate Government to the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay which was registered as Reference (II) No. 55 of 1995. In the said reference the petitioner employer is first party (for short, employer) while the union respondent No. 1 is second party (for short, union ). On 8-2-96 Shri K. T. Rai, Advocate for the employer though nobody was present on behalf of the union. Shri K. T. Rai, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on the next date. 22-2-96 was fixed as next date by the Industrial Tribunal for filing statement of claim. On that day Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal was on leave. Shri. K. T. Rai, Advocate appeared for the employer while the union was represented by its representative. Since the Presiding Officer was on leave, 22-4-96 was fixed as next date for filing statement of claim. On that date Shri K. T. Rai, Advocate appeared for the employer and the representative of the union was present and he made an application objecting to the appearance of the Advocate by the employer. The said application was replied by 1st party employer on 5th August, 96 and a plea was set-up inter alia that the first appointed date of the adjudicational proceedings was on 8-2-96. Thereafter, the second appointed date of adjudicational proceeding was on 22-2-96 and the third appointed date of adjudicational proceeding was on 22-4-96 on which date for the first time the second party union preferred the application registering their objection for the appearance of advocate for and on behalf of the employer and since the objection was not raised on the first date of adjudicational proceedings, it would be deemed that the union second party had given its implied consent for appearance of the advocate on behalf of employer 1st party. The Industrial Court heard the application made by the union raising objection of appearance by the advocate on behalf of employer and by the impugned order dated 6-5-97 upheld the objection of the union for the appearance of the advocate representing the employer.