WORKMAN MAN DUTT RAJAK Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents. The order dated 6.3.2013 passed in Reference Case No. 3/2011 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Deoghar is under challenge by the petitioner.

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though categorical authorization was made by the workman as also the present petitioner, who is the general secretary of Rajpath Parivahan Union and who had earlier raised industrial dispute on behalf of the workman in question but the learned labour court has refused to allow the representation of one Upendra Chourasia in favour of the workman. According to the petitioner, he had earlier, as a representative of the workman, raised industrial dispute before the appropriate government where-after a reference in the terms indicated in the notification dated 10th August, 2011 was made before the Labour Court, Deoghar to determine as to whether the reversal of the workman on the basic grade of pay by the management of Bihar State Road Transport Corporation was proper or not and to what relief he is entitled. It is submitted that the workman and the present petitioner both jointly authorized Sri Upendra Chourasia, member of the working committee of the union, to represent him before the concerned labour court, Deoghar in Reference Case No. 3/2011. However, though that has earlier been accepted by order dated 21.10.2011, Annexure 4 but by the impugned order dated 6.3.2013 the learned labour court rejected the representation of Upendra Chourasia.

(3.) The petitioner relied upon Section 36(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which provides representation of the parties including a workman before the Labor Court/Industrial Tribunal. According to the petitioner, if a workman even though may not be a member of any trade union, he may authorize any member of the executive or office bearer of any trade union connected therewith or by any other workman employed in the industry in which the worker is employed and authorize in such manner as may be prescribed to represent him before a Labour Court.