CW 2462/08 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2462/08 Welcome Group Hotel Mansingh Karmchari Union Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 01/05/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Dharmendra Jain, for petitioner Mr. Suresh Kashyap, for respondents *** Since basic dispute is between the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 & 3 in the instant petition and they are being represented by their counsel, matter is finally heard at this stage. Instant petition has been filed by Union assailing interim orders passed by Industrial Tribunal dated 11th January, 2008 [Ann.14] followed by subsequent order dated 27th February, 2008 [Ann.17] whereby the application dated 4th December, 2007 along with document dated 22nd August, 2007 with regard to proceeding of General Body Meeting of the Union as alleged and those who were elected pursuant thereto was taken on record and the later application filed by President of the Union permitting them to lead evidence to show that this is forged document, has been rejected by Tribunal. A reference was made by appropriate government vide its notification dated 22nd February, 1999 for settlement of the demand charter which is enclosed with the reference CW 2462/08 [2] dated 20th March, 1998 between union and management who is respondent No.4 in the instant petition. After a reference was made, the union and so also the management led their evidence and filed their document on which they wanted to place reliance and finally evidence of management was concluded on 24th August, 2004 and matter was, thereafter, posted for final hearing. During pendency, management [respondent No.4] along with application dated 3rd July, 2007 filed a duly signed & registered settlement in the office of conciliation officer, placed on record. It is relevant to mention that alleged settlement was duly signed by Mr. Govind Singh, President & Sudhakar Reddy, General Secretary in addition to other members of the union. After settlement was taken on record, a later development has taken place. Application was filed on 4th December, 2007 along with document dated 22nd August, 2007 to show that the General Body of the union in its meeting has elected Bharat Singh as President & Tapan Ghose as General Secretary which was opposed by present petitioner. Learned Tribunal after adjudication between two rival groups of executive of the union, allowed application and took the document on record and accordingly, disposed of application vide order dated 11th January, 2008. Immediately thereafter, application was filed on behalf of petitioner to be more precise by the President & Secretary of the union on 5th February, 2008 seeking permission from the Tribunal to lead evidence to show that the CW 2462/08 [3] document, which has been taken on record, is a forged one which was opposed by respondent Nos.2 & 3 who have now claimed themselves to be the President & Secretary of the union in question. After hearing counsel for parties, the Tribunal rejected application seeking permission to lead evidence in this regard, however, posted the matter on 12th March, 2008 to decide as to who will be the President & Secretary of the Union whose assistance can be taken by Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute in question. Counsel for petitioner submits that learned Tribunal has committed a serious error in taking the document on record, which is not supported by any material and duly elected President & General Secretary as per their Constitution are representing the union throughout from the date of initial inception taking care of large number of members of its union at such a belated stage when the reference is at the verge of final conclusion. Counsel further submits that even the document, which has been taken on record, is a forged one for which permission has also not been granted to lead evidence, which is a manifest error the Tribunal has committed in passing order impugned Ann.17 dated 27th February, 2008. Counsel further submits that inter se dispute that who is elected executive of the union, such disputes cannot be resolved by the Tribunal. As such, further observation made to decide the inter se dispute between executive of the union as to who will represent the union before the Tribunal is without jurisdiction. CW 2462/08 [4] Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 while supporting finding recorded under order impugned, submits that last election took place in 1996 and according to its Constitution elections are supposed to take place every year and since no fruitful purpose was being served by the existing executive representing the union before the Tribunal, a collective decision was taken by majority members of the union and Bharat Singh & Tapan Ghose were elected as President & General Secretary of the union on 29th August, 2007 and accordingly, the said document was placed on record by them before Tribunal to apprise that since there is change of executive including President & General Secretary of the union, the same may be taken on record. As such, no error has been committed by Tribunal while passing order Ann.14 dated 11th January, 2008. Counsel further submits that so far as later order of 27th February, 2008 is concerned, the same objection was raised by them from very inception that the document being forged, which the Tribunal has once rejected, it was nothing but a repetition of submission, as such, Tribunal has not committed any error in rejecting the subsequent application filed by petitioner vide order Ann.17 dated 27th February, 2008. Counsel further submits that they being the office bearers of the union, they alone have a right to plead before the Tribunal, but the issue is still open and no finding eitherway has been recorded by the Tribunal. I have considered the submission of counsel for parties and with their assistance examined the material on record. CW 2462/08 [5] Learned Tribunal is supposed to examine the terms of reference which includes demand charter attached thereto and not the inter se dispute between the executive of the union as to who will represent the Union before Tribunal. As regards order impugned Ann.14 dated 11th January, 2008, learned Tribunal after adjudication has only observed to take the document on record which only contemplate about alleged executive and more particularly, the President & General Secretary of the alleged office-bearers of the union, which in opinion of this court does not cause prejudice to either of the parties. As regards second order impugned Ann.17 dated 27th February, 2008, learned Tribunal refused to grant permission to petitioner and more particularly, the President & General Secretary to lead evidence in support of their contention to show that the document, which has been taken on record, is forged one. Learned Tribunal has not marked any exhibit in regard to document which has been taken on record in reference to order impugned dated 11th January, 2008 and apart from the fact that it being the interim order, it is for the Tribunal to consider in the facts of instant case as to whether such permission was required to be granted or not and this court does not find any manifest error in passing order impugned Ann.17 dated 27th February, 2008 which may call for interference. As regards submission made as who will now represent the union, no opinion has been expressed by Tribunal and the matter was posted CW 2462/08 [6] for consideration. But, in opinion of this court, the reference made by the appropriate government is for adjudication but who will represent the union through their President & General Secretary, is not so material and certainly it is not a issue before Tribunal. But, at the same time reference made by appropriate government hanging fire for almost a decade and no fruitful result has come forward which may give some benefits to its members and this fact cannot be ruled out atleast that whether it is represented by President & General Secretary who have preferred petition and the respondent Nos.2 & 3 who as alleged to be the President & General Secretary of the union, their goal is common as to what benefits can be extended to members of the union under the terms of reference which can protect their interests as far as possible under the parameters of law. Thus, in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this court considers appropriate that let the union, who was initially represented by the President & General Secretary who have preferred petition and the alleged elected President & General Secretary, who are respondent Nos.2-3, may jointly appear and taking note thereof and other material available on record, learned Tribunal may proceed to finally adjudicate the reference and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Petitioner along with respondent Nos.2 & 3 may joinly appear CW 2462/08 [7] before Tribunal on 19th May, 2008 and espouse cause of members of the union. Record be sent back to the Tribunal fortwith. No order as to costs. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA2462CW2008 1-5.doc