BEHAR JOURNALS LTD Vs. H K CHAUDHURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution arises out of orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal Bihar at Patna on the 2nd and 31st of January 1964. By the first order the Tribunal permitted one Mr. Ranen Roy to represent the Behar Journals Ltd. Employees Union and refused permission to one Mr. A. K. Tewari to represent the employer in an industrial dispute between the Management of the Behar Journals Ltd., Patna, and the workmen represented by the Behar Journals Ltd, Employees Union in Reference No. 15 of 1963.

(2.) The State Government made a reference of the dispute under Industrial Disputes Act on 14th of May 1963. It was received by the Tribunal on the 22nd of May on which date it ordered notices to be given to the parties to file written statements by the 8th June 1963. The Union filed it and after that, the Management filed their written statement on the 17th of August 1963. The hearing date was fixed for the 3rd of September 1963. It was adjourned at one stage and it was fixed for hearing on the 10th of December 1963. A few days before that date, that is, on the 4th of December 1963, the Employees Union made an application asking for adjournment of the case on the ground that Mr. Ranen Ray, Advocate, was to represent them and that he was to be absent in Calcutta in connection with a marriage in his family on the 10th of December. 'That question was taken up by the Tribunal on the 10th of December 1963. Mr. A. K. Tewari and Mr. B. B. Karan appeared on behalf of the Management and the Union respectively. A rejoinder was filed on behalf of the Management against the prayer for adjournment made by the Union. The case, however, was adjourned by the Tribunal to the 17th of December, but again on the 12th of December the Union filed another application for adjournment in advance, stating therein that as the engagement of a lawyer on their behalf had been opposed by the Management, it would not be possible for them to get ready in the case within a short time so as to be able to meet the challenge of the Management through a lawyer representing them. The Tribunal on that date adjourned the case to the 2nd January 1964.

(3.) On that day Mr. Ranen Ray represented the Union as the Vice-President of that Union. That was opposed by Mr. A. K. Tewari who appeared on behalf of the Management. Certain papers appear to have been produced before the Tribunal on that date as we find from the order recorded by the Presiding Officer. Under Rule 20 of the Constitution of the Bihar Journals Employees Union Mr. Ranen Roy had been nominated by the President of that Union as Vice-President on the 14th of December 1963 on the acceptance of the resignation of Sri Radha Mohan Prasad Verma who was the Vice-President of the Union before. The Tribunal found that on account of this appointment of Mr. Ranen Roy as Vice-President of the Union, he was qualified to represent the Union under Section 36(1) (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In that view, the Tribunal permitted Mr. Ranen Roy to represent the Union.