Madan Mohan Ghosh Vs. M/s. Infar (India) Ltd. & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 6413 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 20234/2000)
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 20234/2000)
Petitioner: Madan Mohan Ghosh
Respondent: M/s. Infar (India) Ltd. & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 6413 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 20234/2000)
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 20234/2000)
Judges: D.P. MOHAPATRA & SHIVARAJ V.PATIL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 13, 2001
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 36(2), (3), (4) – Representation of association – Eligibility – One ‘A’ deputed to represent – Objection taken as he was legal practitioner – Petition filed – Respondent to be called upon to produce certain documents – No objection filed nor documents produced to show eligibility of ‘A’ to represent – Findings recorded by the tribunal and division bench, without attempt to get relevant documents and effect of non production. Held that finding were without any evidence. Judgment set aside and matter remitted as to tribunal with liberty to parties to file fresh material and objections. (Paras 5, 6)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. In this appeal, the workman has challenged the judgment of a division bench of Calcutta High Court in APO No. 13 of 2000 allowing the appeal filed by the employer, respondent no. 1 herein (hereinafter referred to as the ‘respondent’).
3. The controversy raised in the case relates to the eligibility of one Amar Roy to represent the respondent before the industrial tribunal as the president of employers’ association of which the respondent is a member. The association is known as Assam, West Bengal, Orissa and Bihar Employers’ Association which is stated to be registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act. The objection raised by the appellant against representation of the respondent by Sri Amar Roy was that being a legal practitioner he was not eligible to represent the respondent in view of the provisions in section 36 (2), (3) and (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, it was alleged by the appellant that Sri Amar Roy was not the president of the association of which the respondent was a member and he was ineligible to represent the respondent on that ground also. On behalf of the workman, a petition was filed before the tribunal to call upon the respondent to produce certain documents which were for adjudication of the matter as claimed by the appellant. The respondent neither filed any objection to the said petition nor produced the documents stated therein.
4. The learned tribunal was not satisfied that any valid objection could be raised against the appearance of Sri Amar Roy on behalf of the respondent vide the order dated 24.5.1999. The order was assailed by the workman by filing a writ petition in the High Court, in which a learned single judge disagreed with the order of the tribunal and held that on the facts and circumstances of the case, Sri Amar Roy, who may be an ‘office bearer’ of the employers’ association was not an ‘officer’ of the said association and, therefore, he was not eligible to represent the workman in terms of the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The company carried the matter in writ appeal before the division bench which, as noted earlier, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned single judge and permitted Sri Amar Roy to represent the respondent. Hence, this appeal by the workman.
5. It was not disputed before us that the respondent had not produced any material in support of its case that under the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, Sri Amar Roy was eligible to represent it, except furnishing the registration number of the association of which Sri Amar Roy was said to be the president. It follows therefore that the finding recorded by the tribunal was without making any attempt to get the relevant documents which were stated in the objection petition and without considering the effect of non-production of the same in the case. The finding of the tribunal in this regard was based on no evidence. The learned single judge, as noted earlier, had laid stress on the expression ‘officer of the association’ and distinguished it from the expression ‘office bearer’. The division bench also did not go into the question of non-production of the documents stated in the objection petition and the effect of its non-production.
6. On consideration of the matter, we are of the view that the order passed by the tribunal was made without a proper enquiry into the matter and it was not based on any acceptable material. Therefore, the said order, as confirmed by the division bench, is unsupportable and has to be set aside and the matter remitted to the tribunal for passing an appropriate order after proper enquiry. Since the matter is being remitted to the tribunal for fresh consideration it will not be proper for us to make any observation on merits of the case.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order of the first industrial tribunal, West Bengal, dated 24.5.1999 in the industrial dispute between Sri Madan Mohan Ghosh v. M/s. Infar (India) Ltd., as confirmed by the division bench of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. It would be open to the parties to file further objection/reply and produce materials in support of their respective cases before the tribunal. The tribunal will dispose of the matter by passing a reasoned order expeditiously within three months of receipt of intimation of this order. Parties will bear their respective costs of this appeal.
1. Leave granted.
2. In this appeal, the workman has challenged the judgment of a division bench of Calcutta High Court in APO No. 13 of 2000 allowing the appeal filed by the employer, respondent no. 1 herein (hereinafter referred to as the ‘respondent’).
3. The controversy raised in the case relates to the eligibility of one Amar Roy to represent the respondent before the industrial tribunal as the president of employers’ association of which the respondent is a member. The association is known as Assam, West Bengal, Orissa and Bihar Employers’ Association which is stated to be registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act. The objection raised by the appellant against representation of the respondent by Sri Amar Roy was that being a legal practitioner he was not eligible to represent the respondent in view of the provisions in section 36 (2), (3) and (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, it was alleged by the appellant that Sri Amar Roy was not the president of the association of which the respondent was a member and he was ineligible to represent the respondent on that ground also. On behalf of the workman, a petition was filed before the tribunal to call upon the respondent to produce certain documents which were for adjudication of the matter as claimed by the appellant. The respondent neither filed any objection to the said petition nor produced the documents stated therein.
4. The learned tribunal was not satisfied that any valid objection could be raised against the appearance of Sri Amar Roy on behalf of the respondent vide the order dated 24.5.1999. The order was assailed by the workman by filing a writ petition in the High Court, in which a learned single judge disagreed with the order of the tribunal and held that on the facts and circumstances of the case, Sri Amar Roy, who may be an ‘office bearer’ of the employers’ association was not an ‘officer’ of the said association and, therefore, he was not eligible to represent the workman in terms of the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The company carried the matter in writ appeal before the division bench which, as noted earlier, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned single judge and permitted Sri Amar Roy to represent the respondent. Hence, this appeal by the workman.
5. It was not disputed before us that the respondent had not produced any material in support of its case that under the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, Sri Amar Roy was eligible to represent it, except furnishing the registration number of the association of which Sri Amar Roy was said to be the president. It follows therefore that the finding recorded by the tribunal was without making any attempt to get the relevant documents which were stated in the objection petition and without considering the effect of non-production of the same in the case. The finding of the tribunal in this regard was based on no evidence. The learned single judge, as noted earlier, had laid stress on the expression ‘officer of the association’ and distinguished it from the expression ‘office bearer’. The division bench also did not go into the question of non-production of the documents stated in the objection petition and the effect of its non-production.
6. On consideration of the matter, we are of the view that the order passed by the tribunal was made without a proper enquiry into the matter and it was not based on any acceptable material. Therefore, the said order, as confirmed by the division bench, is unsupportable and has to be set aside and the matter remitted to the tribunal for passing an appropriate order after proper enquiry. Since the matter is being remitted to the tribunal for fresh consideration it will not be proper for us to make any observation on merits of the case.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order of the first industrial tribunal, West Bengal, dated 24.5.1999 in the industrial dispute between Sri Madan Mohan Ghosh v. M/s. Infar (India) Ltd., as confirmed by the division bench of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. It would be open to the parties to file further objection/reply and produce materials in support of their respective cases before the tribunal. The tribunal will dispose of the matter by passing a reasoned order expeditiously within three months of receipt of intimation of this order. Parties will bear their respective costs of this appeal.
