UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK LTD Vs. KARTAR SINGH CAMPBELLPURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate Writ for quashing of an order of an Industrial Tribunal dated 19-5-1951 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay certain costs and expenses incurred by an employee of the petitioner in connection with certain proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal at Dehra-Dun.

(2.) The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at Delhi and its head office at 2 Royal Exchange Place, Calcutta. The respondent is the Chairman, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, having his office at 20/1, Gurusaday Dutt Boad, Ballygunge, Calcutta, within the jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that one A.C. Kakkar is an employee of the petitioner and Mr. Kakkar represented the employees of several other banks in certain proceedings in connection with industrial disputes between those banks and their employees before the respondent, sitting as Chairman of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Dehra Dun between 7-5-1951 and 19-5-1951. Neither the petitioner Bank nor its employees were parties to any of the disputes or proceedings dealt with by the respondent at the sitting of the Tribunal at Dehra Dun, nor did Mr. Kakkar attend the proceedings in his capacity as representative of the employees of the petitioner Bank. At the conclusion of the proceedings the respondent by an order made on 10-5-1951 directed that the Union representatives should bo paid by the respective banks of which they were employees, single second class faro both ways from their place of duty to Dehra Dun and back and diem allowance at the rate of Rs. 5 per day for the days they attended at Dohra Dun. The petitioner was directed to pay the expenses incurred by Mr. Kakkar. The order was made without hearing the petitioner bank which was not a party to the proceedings in which the order was made. The petitioner aubmita that the Banks which were parties to the proceedings at Dehra Dun and the cause of whose employees the said Mr. Kakkar was representing in those proceedings should bear the costs and expenses of Mr. Kakkar and the petitioner Bank which was not a party to any of the proceedings at Dehra Dun should not be made liable to pay the costs and expenses incurred by Mr. Kakkar in connection with the said proceedings at Dehra Dun. After the order was made and communicated to the petitioner, representation was made on behalf of the petitioner to the respondent by a letter dated 1-6-1951. The respondent thereupon heard a representative of the petitioner at a sitting hold at Naini Tal but confirmed the order made by him on 19-5-1951. This order of confirmation was made on 9-6-1951 but was communicated to the petitioner on or about 9-7-1951, and subsequently by a letter dated 10-7-1951 the respondent called upon the petitioner to pay to Mr. Kakkar the expenses ordered to be paid by him. The petitioner thereupon moved this Court and obtained a Rule Nisi.