REFRACTORY SPECIALITIES INDIA LTD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two individual workmen dismissed from service by the management of Refractory Specialities (India) Limited (the petitioner in these two writ petitions) raised industrial disputes which were sent for adjudication before the Labour Court, Deoghar in two separate references made under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The two references were registered before the Labour Court as I. D. Cases Nos. 1 and 3 of 1984. Initially the management sought to be represented in those two cases before the Labour Court through B. Lal and D.K. Verma, advocates, who filed the authority given by the management in terms of rule 34 of the Industrial Disputes (Bihar) Rules. The workmen who were not being represented by any legal practitioner objected to the management's representation through practising advocates whereupon the Labour Court declined to grant leave to the two advocates to represent the management.

(2.) B. Lal, not one to accept defeat easily, later appeared in the two cases before the Labour Court on September 3, 1996 and claimed to represent the management not as an advocate but as a shareholder in the company. On that date a witness was examined on behalf of the workman. In I. D. Case No. 1 of 1994 whom B. Lal cross-examined on behalf of the management; in I. D. Case No. 3 of 1994 a witness was examined for the management whose examination-in-chief was conducted by B. Lal, on the same date workmen filed petitions in both the cases objecting to B. Lal appearing for the management. The management filed its rejoinder to the workmen's objections and the Labour Court after hearing the parties came to the finding that the device adopted by the management was intended to circumvent the bar created by Section 36(4) of the Act. Accordingly, by order dated December 12, 1996 passed in I.D. Case No. 1 of 1994, the Labour Court disallowed B. Lal to represent the management even under the pretext of being a shareholder of the company. It is this order that comes under challenge in these two writ petitions filed by the management of Refractory Specialities (India) Limited.

(3.) When the two cases were earlier taken up on October 27, 1997 it was found that the material facts were not fully stated in the writ petitions and the management-petitioner was accordingly directed to file a supplementary affidavit furnishing the information(s) desired by the court. Thereupon, a supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in which it is stated that the Labour Court earlier disallowed the management from being represented by legal practitioners on July 26, 1995 and B. Lal applied for purchase of the shares of the company on July 26, 1996, "through only filed (sic) up application form". A photostat copy of the application form is made annexure-11 to the supplementary affidavit from which it appears that it is quite incorrect to say that the application form was duly filled up. Annexure-11 is a share transfer form which is practically blank. The only column of the form which is filled up relates to the transferee's/buyer's particulars which bears the name, signature and address of Babban Lal; the column concerning the transferor's/ seller's particulars is left blank with only the signature there of some one. The rest of the form relating to the name of the company, the description of equity/preference shares, the number of shares and the consideration paid for it and the place and date of making the application are all left blank. Annexure-12 is a copy of a leaf from some minutes book which indicates approval of transfer of 20 shares from R.D. Sharma to Babban Lal. Annexure-12 also does not bear any date, signatures, etc. The value of the shares purchased by B. Lal, though directed to be stated by order dated October 27, 1997, is nowhere stated in the supplementary affidavit. As noted above, in the share transfer form (Annexure-11), the transferee Lal did not even indicate the name of the company whose shares he wanted transferred in his name and on the basis of the materials brought on record leave me wondering whether the transfer of shares in favour of Lal can at all be said to have been validly made. For the purpose of this case, however, I will assume that the transfer of shares was validly made and Lal came to hold 20 shares (value not known) of the company with effect from July 26, 1996.