ASBESTOS JANATA MAZDOOR UNION Vs. ETERNIT EVEREST LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the original relief which was sought was in regard to quashment of orders Annexure P/1 and P/2 dated 19. 1. 2004 and 9. 2. 2004 and to direct the Industrial Court to implead the petitioners as party to the reference case and permit them to cross-examine the Management witnesses and participate in the reference proceedings as a party to the dispute. However, on account of subsequent events, as during the pendency of this writ petition, the Industrial Court passed the final order on 12. 3. 2004 in regard to the reference case referred to it, the petitioner has amended the petition by adding the relief that the order dated 12. 3. 2004 passed by Industrial Court be quashed.

(2.) SHRI Rohit Arya, learned senior counsel by inviting my attention to annexure P/5 which Is an order passed by this Court dated 30. 11. 2001 passed in W. P. No. 2043/2001 and also by giving emphasis on Clause (3) has submitted that the authorized representative of the petitioner Union was allowed to remain present on each day of the proceeding in the Industrial Court as a monitor in the reference case. However, on going through the said clause it is gathered that this Court held that the petitioner shall have no authority, except that if the Labour Officer does some thing against the interest of the employees. Shri Kuldeep Bhargava, learned Counsel appearing for the Management (respondent No. 2) submitted that the Industrial Court in all fairness not only has taken into consideration the said direction of this Court, but it has also acted accordingly.

(3.) BEFORE dealing with the rival contentions of learned Counsel for the parties, it would be relevant to mention that the first party to the reference case before the Industrial Court, namely, General Secretary, Asbestos Karmachari Sangh Eternit Everest Kymore (respondent No. 2) has not assailed the impugned final order of Industrial Court and the present petitioners are not the parties to the reference case. Though the original petitioner No. 1 was party No. 1 in the reference case at one point of time, however, the State Government on 7. 4. 2001 found and directed that since petitioner No. 1, namely, Asbestos Janata Mazdoor Union is not recognized as Representative Union, directed to join Labour Officer, Katni as the representative of the employees. Thereafter on 16. 7. 2002 another amended order was issued that respondent No. 2 to this petition, has been recognized as the Representative Union, therefore, in place of the name of Labour Officer, Katni, the name of respondent No. 2 be substituted as party No. 1 and accordingly respondent No. 2 was substituted as party No. 1 in the reference case before the Industrial Court.