1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1031/2008 Welcome Group Hotel Mansingh Karmchari Union, Jaipur Vs. The Presiding officer, Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur & Ors. Date of Judgment :: May 23, 2008. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Dharmendra Jain for the appellant. Mr. Suresh Kashyap for the respondents. *** This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 1.5.2008 whereby the writ petition of the appellant filed against the orders dated 11.1.2008 and 27.2.2008 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur has been dismissed. The appellant is the Union of employees of the Welcome Group Hotel Mansingh and it was participating in the proceedings of reference made to the Industrial Tribunal by the appropriate government vide notification dated 22.2.1999 regarding settlement of the demand charter dated 20.3.1998 between the Union and the Management. When the reference proceedings were going on, an application was made by another union which claimed that in the Emergency General Body Meeting of the employees convened on 22.8.2007, new office bearers of the Union have been elected. The Industrial Tribunal vide its order dated 11.1.2008 allowed the application of such duly elected office bearer, allowed the proceedings of the Emergency General Body Meeting held on 22.8.2007 and the information constituting the new Executive Committee of the Union to be placed on record. The appellant then made an application before the Tribunal alleging that the document of the proceedings 2 dated 22.8.2007 was forged one and this document should not be allowed to be taken on record. It was contended that no new union has come into being and there was no constitution of the new Executive Committee of the Union. The learned Tribunal disallowed that application by order dated 27.2.2008 (Ann.17). The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed thereagainst directed that in peculiar facts of the case, it is considered appropriate that both the unions, that is, one which was initially representing the workmen before the Tribunal and the one which is newly elected represented by the respondent nos.2 and 3 herein, may jointly appear and make their submission before the Tribunal in the interest of the workmen. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that new union is making such arguments before the Tribunal as may be outside the scope of the reference made to the Industrial Tribunal. The learned counsel submitted that when all through the present union has been representing interest of the workman, new union should not be allowed to represent them before the Tribunal. It was argued that prior to permitting the alleged new union to participate in the proceedings, the document on the strength of which, it claims to have been elected, should be first examined. Assertion of the appellant is that no such emergency meeting of the general body has taken place and document is forged one. The learned Tribunal was not justified in not permitting the appellant to adduce evidence on that aspect of the matter. Having head the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order impugned and also the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we find that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the 3 effect that both the unions may make their submissions before the Tribunal is just and proper given the fact that the reference has been made in the general interest of the workmen and not in the interest of one or the other union. The inter se disputes between the unions cannot be allowed to overshadow the interest of the workmen. The argument that the other union may not support the demand charter and may act against the interest of the workmen cannot be accepted because it is for the Tribunal to ultimately decide the matter by answering the reference within the framework of law. Office bearers of the two groups of the employees for resolving their inter-se dispute as to validity of the election may have their remedy elsewhere but certainly the ongoing reference proceedings cannot provide them a forum for settling such dispute. We, therefore, do not find any substance in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J. (NARAYAN ROY),CJ. Skant/-