Case: Workmen of Government Silk Weaving Factory, Mysore Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore &amp; Others

2. We will briefly refer to the facts leading up to the filing of the Writ Petitions by the appellants. Disputes having arisen between the workmen and the managementregarding emoluments, transfer of. termination of services of and suspension of certain workmen, the State Government by its order dated October 23, 1965, referred the same for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore. These disputes were registered by the Tribunal as I. D. Nos. 40 and 47 of 1965.There was rivalry between two groups of persons for the office bearership of the union, which had been registered under the Trade Union Act. Sannaiah represented one group and claimed to be the President of the union; while respondents 3 to 9 herein claimed to be the office bearers of the union. These respondents 3 to 9 represented the rival one group. The 4th respondent, Rangaiah, filed a suit, O.S. No. 962 of 1965, on the file of the First Munsiff, Mysore, against Sannaiah and certain others for a declaration that he was theof the union and respondents 3 and 5 to 9 were the duly elected office bearers of the union. An application filed by Rangaiah for an interim injunction restraining Sannaiah and his group from functioning as office bearers was dismissed by the Munsiff on January 10, 1966. Even before the Tribunal, where the disputes were being adjudicated, these rival groups claimed to be the office bearers and as such eligible to represent the workmen. Claim statements were filed on behalf of the workmen by these rival groups.

Reasoning:
As already mentioned by us, we, do not propose to go into the question regarding the scope of Section 36 of the Act or rule 59 of the Mysore Rules in these appeals. Whatever technical objections the appellant may have to the manner in which the settlement has been arrived at, it is clear, as found by the Tribunal and accepted by the High Court, that the settlement is beneficial to a substantial body of workmen of this factory. There is also the evidence that Sannaiah had an opportunity to contest the settlement on February 11, 1966, when evidence was being recorded by the Tribunal and he was present in Court. He did not choose to participate in the said proceedings.6. In view of the above circumstances and on the particular facts of this case, we are satisfied that the High Court was justified in declining to interfere with the awards.