Metal Box Employees Union vs State of Haryana

Rajesh Bindal, J.—This is an application for reviewing the order dated 18.2.2014, passed in CM Nos. 16137-38 of 2012 in CWP No. 1118 of 2011. Along with the application, another application seeking condonation of delay of 110 days in filing the review application has also been filed.

It is a case in which the applicant initially filed the writ petition claiming itself to be the employees union for making reference pertaining to industrial dispute to Labour Court at Chandigarh. When the writ petition was heard and disposed of on 19.9.2012, the prayer was for transfer of the industrial dispute pending in the court at Faridabad to any other court on the ground that members of the Union are not able to pursue their case properly at Faridabad on account of various reasons. A finger of accusation was raised against respondent No. 4, though the same was denied by him. Considering the fact that the workers were seeking transfer of the industrial dispute pending in Labour Court at Faridabad to some other place, this court, vide order dated 19.9.2012, directed for its transfer from Faridabad to Gurgaon.

Thereafter, some of the employees filed application for recalling the aforesaid order. It was on the plea that though the petition is claimed to have been filed on behalf of the employees'' union, however, there was no resolution of the union annexed with the petition. It was further claimed that Anjan Kumar Banerjee, who had signed the petition as President, was not authorised person as the issue as to whether he was President or not was to be decided by the Labour Court as it was left open by Hon''ble the Supreme Court while deciding a dispute between the parties.

At the time of hearing in CM Nos. 16137-38 of 2012 filed by the workers, counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition did not dispute the fact that there was no resolution annexed with the petition authorising Anjan Kumar Banerjee for filing the petition in this court on behalf of the Union. The petitioner in the writ petition placed on record copy of the resolution dated 7.6.2010 containing signatures of 11 officers and 32 members of the Union, however, when asked to show the original thereof, despite repeated adjournments, the needful was not done. It was pleaded by the applicant therein that Anjan Kumar Banerjee had, in fact, connived with the management with a view to jeopardise the interest of the workers. Learned counsel for the applicant seeking to re-call the order dated 19.9.2012 had further pointed out before the court that out of 19 signatures on the first page of the alleged resolution placed on record by the petitioner in the writ petition, 18 signatories had already settled their accounts with the management. Only Anjan Kumar Banerjee had left. He had further produced affidavits of the employees, who had purportedly signed the resolution produced by the petitioner in the writ petition, stating that the document is fabricated. It was under these circumstances that the order passed by this court on 19.9.2012 transferring the dispute from Labour Court, Faridabad to Labour Court, Gurgaon was re-called and the case was to be tried by Labour Court, Faridabad. The text of the order dated 18.2.2014 is reproduced hereunder:

Prayer in the present application is for recalling of the order passed by this court on 19.9.2012. Contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that the writ petition was filed under the signature of Anjan Kumar Banerjee. No resolution of the Union was annexed. In fact the dispute regarding representation of the Union through Anjan Kumar Banerjee, so called president was raised even before Hon''ble the Supreme Court and while deciding the Special Leave Petition, Hon''ble the Supreme Court had left that issue open to be decided by the Labour Court vide order dated 5.4.2010. Notice in the application for recalling the order has been issued on 22.11.2012. Present application has been filed by Rattan Kumar Bhattacharya claiming himself to be General Secretary of the Union. The resolution passed by the workers of the Union dated 6.11.2010 has been annexed with the application.

Learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant/petitioner did not dispute the fact that there is no resolution annexed with the writ petition authorizing Anjan K. Banerjee to represent the Union. An application has been filed by the non-applicant/petitioner to place on record copy of the resolution passed on 7.6.2010 (Annexure P-17). It contains signatures of 11 officers and 32 members of the Union. Learned counsel for the non-applicant/petitioner was asked to show the original documents considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant that signatures from Sr. Nos. 20 to 43 were taken for different purpose but he was not able to produce the same, despite the fact that the case was adjourned number of times.

Another contention raised by counsel for the applicant is that the first page of the resolution is containing 19 signatures, 18 signatories had already settled the accounts with the management only Anjan Kumar Banerjee had been left. He further placed on record affidavits of all the persons, who had purportedly signed the resolution, to show that the resolution produced by the non-applicant/petitioner with the reply to the application, as Annexure P-17 is fabricated document.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and finding that writ petition though was filed on behalf of the Union, but the resolution passed by the members of the Union had not been placed on record with the writ petition, the same could not be entertained. In fact on account of mistake committed by the Registry, the petition was passed and placed before this court for decision. The application for recalling the order was filed later on by the members of the Union, who were affected by the decision. As this court was mislead by Anjan K Banerjee by filing the writ petition on behalf of the Union without any authorization in his favour, the same deserves to be disposed of.

Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned above, the application is allowed. The order passed by this court on 19.9.2012 is recalled. The matter will now be transferred back to the Labour Court, Faridabad to be dealt with in accordance with law.

CMs stand disposed of.

The aforesaid order passed by this court in CM Nos. 16137-38 of 2012 was challenged by the review applicant vide LPA No. 642 of 2014--Metal Box Employees Union (Regd.) v. State of Haryana and others. The same was dismissed as withdrawn on 24.4.2014 to seek appropriate remedy. The aforesaid order is extracted below:

Counsel for the appellant wishes to withdraw this appeal to seek appropriate remedy.

Ordered accordingly.

Thereafter, the present review application has been filed. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that certain documents, which are relevant, could not be produced on the date when the application for re-calling the order dated 19.9.2012 was heard by this court.

It is despite the fact that the aforesaid application remained pending before this court from 22.11.2012 till 18.2.2014, but the documents, which are sought to be relied upon now, were never produced. Still further when even the LPA filed against the order sought to be reviewed was dismissed as withdrawn, the review cannot be said to be the appropriate remedy.

Considering the aforesaid facts, the review application was dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the review application.

The review application along with accompanying applications are dismissed as withdrawn. However, considering the conduct of the review applicant, it is burdened with cost of Rs. 50,000/-, which shall be deposited with Haryana Legal Services Authority within one month of receipt of copy of the order.