Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 777 (JHR)

Workman Man Dutt Rajak v. State of Jharkhand

2013-07-02

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
ORDER By the Court.-Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The order dated 6.3.2013 passed in Reference Case No. 3/2011 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Deoghar is under challenge by the petitioner. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though categorical authorization was made by the workman as also the present petitioner, who is the general secretary of Rajpath Parivahari Union and who had earlier raised industrial dispute on behalf of the workman in question but the learned labour Court has refused to allow the representation of one Upendra Chourasia in favour of the workman. According to the petitioner, he had earlier, as a representative of the workman, raised industrial dispute before the appropriate Government where-after a reference in the terms indicated in the notification dated 10th August, 2011 was made before the, labour Court, Deoghar to determine as to whether the reversal of the workman on the basic grade of pay by the management of Bihar State Road Transport Corporation was proper or not and to what relief he is entitled. It is submitted that the workman and the present petitioner both jointly authorized Sri Upendra Chourasia, member of the working committee of the union to represent him before the concerned labour Court. Deoghar in Reference Case No. 3/2011. However, though that has earlier been accepted by order dated 21.10.2011. Annexure 4 but by the impugned order dated 6.3.2013 the learned labour Court rejected the representation of Upendra Chourasia. 4. The petitioner relied upon Section 36 (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which provides representation of the parties including a workman before the labor Court/Industrial Tribunal. According to the petitioner, if a workman even though may not be a member of any trade union, he may authorize any member of the executive or, office bearer of any trade union connected therewith or by any other workman employed in the industry in which the worker is employed and authorize in such manner as may be prescribed to represent him before a labour Court. 5. In the instant case, it is submitted that the petitioner as well as the other person Upendra Chourasia are office bearers of the Rajpath Parivahan Union and, therefore, the workman has rightly authorized him to represent him. 5. In the instant case, it is submitted that the petitioner as well as the other person Upendra Chourasia are office bearers of the Rajpath Parivahan Union and, therefore, the workman has rightly authorized him to represent him. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Paradip Port Trust v. Their Workmen, reported in AIR 1977 SC 36 at paras 15 to 17 thereof. which interprets Section 36 of the I.D. Act. It is further submitted that the provision of Section 36 is not only exhaustive but only supplemental to any other lawful mode of representation of parties, which, however, should conform to the conditions prescribed thereunder. In the instant case there is no justification to refuse the representation of the workman by said Upendra Chourasia when both the petitioner and the workman had authorized him. 6. Learned counsel for the State, however, opposed the prayer made on behalf of the writ petitioner. He has, however, not been able to justify the impugned order in the terms of specific provisions contained under Section 36 of the I.D. Act, which permits a workman, who is not even a member of any trade union to authorize any other office member or office bearers to represent him in the manner prescribed. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order and the reference as also the authorization contained in Annexure 3. it appears that the learned labour Court has misdirected itself in refusing permission to Upendra Chourasia to represent the case of the workman, whose reference Case No. 3/2011 was under consideration before the learned Labour Court, though the workman and the present petitioner have authorized Sri Upendra Chourasia to represent his case. 8. From perusal of provisions of Section 36 of the I.D. Act and the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Paradip Port Trust (supra), it appears that the same supports the case of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the impugned order refusing Sri Upendra Chourasia to represent the workman in question is not based on proper appreciation of the relevant' provisions or' act and law and, therefore needs to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 6.3.2013 is quashed. 10. This writ petition stands allowed. Petition allowed.