BHEL Workers Union (HEEP & CFFP) vs Presiding Officer Labour Court And Another

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

The petitioner contends that it is a Trade Union i.e. BHEL Workers Union (HEEP & CFFP) Employees Association, Rankipur, Haridwar. Their

contention is that a Trade Union, named as CFFP Employees Association (AITUC) has raised an industrial dispute in the year 1994, contending that

some of the members of Trade Union who are working with respondent No. 2 have been supplied by some contractors. None of these workmen ever

performed any work of the contractor, but rather used to perform the work allotted to them by respondent No. 2. They were under direct supervision

and control of the Officers of respondent No. 2. Their attendance records and service registers were maintained by respondent No. 2. The cause of

action alleged by petitioner was due to non inclusion of their names in the list of regularly employed workmen in violation of Standing Order. They

have raised an Industrial Dispute in the year 1994, contending that they have worked continuously with respondent No. 2, wherein, they have sought a

settlement of a dispute with regard to the regularization of the workmen said to have been working under the aforesaid Trade Union. It is contended

that the workmen were working with respondent No. 2, but, they have not been treated as workmen by including their name in the list. The complaint

was placed before the Conciliation Board and the same was registered as C.B. Case No. 36 (s) of 1994 and the same was referred for adjudication

before the Labour Court which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 68 of 2003. Following reference was framed :-

/

, ( )

The issue which is in debate is as to whether the workmen whose cause is being espoused by the Trade Union/ petitioner, their list was supplied to the

Conciliation Board at the time of making a reference for adjudication by GO No. 6356 /(i) /Labour service/684-Sram/2002 dated 30.10.2002 or not.

This aspect is disputed by the counsel for the respondent. A statement has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the stage of

conciliation, the list of all the workmen whose cause was there, it was being taken care of by the Trade Union who were included in list submitted

before the Conciliation Board and he further submits that the distinction which is sought to be brought in by the respondent is that the list as placed

before the Conciliation Board was of different set of workmen than what was supplied with paper No. 13-B is also not correct. Based on the

aforesaid statements, this Court, proceeds to decide the controversy finally.

On a reference being made when the proceedings was going on before the Labour Court, the petitioner moved an application invoking Section 25 FF

read with 18 (3) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act to bring on record the name of the workmen. The petitioner, by virtue of the application paper No.

6-D, had sought the following reliefs :-

1947 18(3) (B)

In the application, it was pleaded that the Trade Union which sought reference has succumbed to the pressure of the respondent No. 2 and is not

pressing the Adjudication Case effectively. Hence, petitioner Union decided to get themselves impleaded to save interest of workmen. It was found in

election held of Trade Union on 20.07.2002, out of various Trade Unions, petitioner Trade Union was declared eligible for representation by letter No.

Election/2002 dated 22.07.2002.

This application as submitted by the petitioner was allowed by the Labour Court by the order dated 20th December, 2005. Admittedly, the order dated

20th December, 2005, by virtue of which, the name of the petitioner Trade Union was substituted in place of the earlier Trade Union representing the

workmen, the said order was not put to challenge by the respondent No. 2. Labour Court vide its order dated 12.07.2005 directed petitioner to file

necessary documents and fixed 10.10.2005. The petitioner had also filed another application Paper No. 13-B on 10.10.2005 for following reliefs :-

,

12.7.2005 â€

1- , 0 0 145/ 27.5.2000

7881/92-93-2

2- 93/2002 20.6.02 /16/2002

1.7.05 ( Rnewal ) - 3

3- Codified - 7

“

By virtue of which, he has supplied three documents, i.e. copy of the letter of the Registrar Trade Union, i.e. 27th May, 2007; certified copy of the

certificate No. 7881 /92-93 and the letter dated 20th June, 2002, issued by the Hind Mazdoor Sabha and its affiliation certificate before the Labour

Court. He submits that along with the said application annexure No. 3, which contains the list of workmen, were also filed along with paper No. 13-B.

Same date of filing, i.e. 10.10.2005, arguments were held on paper 13-B. Order was reserved for 20.12.2005.

These documents were taken on record. Labour Court fixed 17.03.2006, written statements by both the parties were filed, pleading were exchanged

and the Labour Court on 25.01.2007 heard oral arguments. Ultimately, the Reference as sought for has been rejected by the award dated 27th April,

2007. The reason which has been assigned by the Labour Court, rather the Labour Court has recorded a finding that there was no anomaly or error

committed in the order of Labour Court dated 20.12.2005, making the petitioner as a party to the proceedings to represent cause of the workmen and,

thereby, declined to base it as a ground for rejecting the reference. But the Labour Court has rejected the reference on the ground that when the

application 6-D was filed and the petitioner was made as a party, they have not produced the list of workmen in relation to whom the reference was

made nor the details of the contractor was supplied with the application paper No. 13-B. Looking to the averments and the contents of the application,

paper 13-B referred above, as filed by the petitioners before the Labour Court and as per the statement also, the list of contractors, the list of

workmen, and few other documents showing the registration of the petitioner as Trade Union were placed on record which was accepted without

there being any challenge given to the order taking the documents on record by respondent No. 2.

In response to it, though Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. I.P. Kohli, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 admits the fact that

the order dated 20.12.2005 allowing the petitioner Trade Union to be brought in place of the earlier Trade Union to espouse the cause of the workmen

and order taking document on record by paper No. 13-B has not been challenged but he has raised question pertaining to the list of workmen in his

objection. But the fact remains that once those workmen whose names contained in the list of workmen has been accepted on record by list paper 13-

B and that order of acceptance itself has not put to challenge by the respondents, in his objection taken with regard thereto without challenging the

final order, becomes irrelevant. Looking to the reasoning which has been assigned by the Labour Court by the impugned award dated 27th April, 2007,

it apparently seems that the Labour Court has proceeded without actually going through the records itself and to the documents which were already

supplied and accepted on record while rejecting the reference.

This Court feels that for the aforesaid reasons, the Labour Court has rendered a perverse finding in the concluding part of the judgment which

constitutes the basis for rejecting the reference which was contrary to the record. These findings recorded are perverse.

“ 6-

“

Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate submits that if the list is not supplied before the Conciliation Board, then that cannot be put on record by invoking

Section 25 FF of the Act. But this argument has already been dealt with by me in the aforesaid paragraph that once his objection in relation to the

application of the petitioner paper 13-B has been turned down by allowing the application and bringing on record the list of workmen and the

respondent and the respondent No. 2 has failed to challenge the said order, the said objection now no more holds water.

In that view of the matter, the impugned award dated 27th April, 2007 is quashed. The matter is relegated back to the Labour Court to decide the

reference on its one merit. Since the matter is very old one and there is an interest of as many as 97 workmen which is involved, it is expected that the

Labour Court will decide the case expeditiously as possible.

The writ petition is allowed. There would be no order as to costs.