Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) On October 1, 1965, the State Government referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal: "Should the employers be required to pay Dear Food Allowance to The workmen, named in the Annexure, at the rate the other workmen of The concern are paid? If so, from which date and with what other details." Before the Tribunal the petitioner, who was the employer, raised a preliminary objection that the Kelners and Spencers Staff Union as well as the Hind Mazdoor Sabba were incompetent to represent the workmen. This point was treated as a preliminary issue. By the impugned order the Presiding Officer held that the Union was comment, to represent the workmen before the Tribunal. This order is sought to be quashed on the ground that the Labour Court erred in interpreting Section 6-I of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.
(2.) The petitioner concern carries on the business of a flour mills as also manufacturer of edible and non-edible oils. The workmen of the petitioner concern are members of the Kelners and Spencers Staff Union. This union is affiliated to the Hind Mazdoor Sabha which is a federation of the Union. The Union is registered under the Trade Unions Act for "Khadya Udyog" This term was translated by the Presiding Officer to mean food stuff industry. The petitioner's submission was that the food stuff industry is a very wide term and it includes many trade unions. The union cannot be held to be registered for one trade only under sub-section (3) of Section 6-I reads as follows: "6-I. Representation of the parties: (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-ss. (2) and (3) the parties to an industrial dispute may be represented before a Board Labour Court, or Tribunal in the manner prescribed. (2) No party to any proceeding before a Board shall be represented by a legal practitioner, and no party to any proceeding before a Labour Court or Tribunal shall be represented by a legal practitioner, unless the consent of the other party or parties to the proceeding and the leave of the Presiding officer of the Labour Court or Tribunal, as The case may be, has been obtained. (3) No officer of a Union shall be entitled to represent any party unless a period of two years has elapsed since its registration under The Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 and the Union has been registered for one trade only: Provided that an officer of a federation of unions may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, represent any party." One of the restrictions imposed by sub-section (3) is that the union has been registered for one trade only under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926, but the proviso permits a federation of unions to represent any party subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. Rule 40 of the rules framed under U.P. Industrial Disputes Act prescribes the conditions. Under sub-clause (b) of clause (1) of this rule, a work, man may be represented by an officer of the federation of unions of which the union referred to in clause (a) is affiliated. The union referred in clause (a) is a union of which the workman is a member. In The case of a union the rules provide an additional condition, namely, that the workman concerned must he a member of the union. In case of a federation the union must be affiliated to it. Both these conditions have been found to exist in the instant case. The workmen involved in the dispute are members of this union. The union is also affiliated to the Hind Mazdoor Sabha which is a federation of unions. The Hind Mazdoor Sabha, therefore, satisfies the conditions of the proviso. It could validly" represent the workmen before the Tribunal. The workmen were being represented by Sri S.K. Srivastava, Regional Secretary of the Hind Mazdoor Sabha. In this capacity he could validly represent the workmen. Sri Srivastava was also a member of the Executive of the Kelners and Spencers Staff Union.
(3.) For the petitioner it was urged that the Union was not competent because it was not registered for one trade only. The registration certificate showed that the union was registered for food stuff industry only. So far as the fact Of registration is concerned, it is clear that the union has been registered for one trade only. The registration is not for any other trade. The petitioner's submission is that the food stuff industry for which the union has been registered is composed of many diverse trades and hence the union should be deemed to be registered for more than one trade. In my opinion the phrase "and the union has been registered for one trade only" in sub-section (3) is intended to refer to the actual registration and not to the meaning of the industry or trade for which it has been registered. If the registration is for one industry or trade, it will fulfil the requirements of this provision. There is nothing in sub-section (3) or any other; provisions of Section 6-I to say that the union mast, be registered for one trade and a trade in which the concerned employer is engaged. The petitioner concerned carries on the work of grinding wheat to produce flour. The union has on its roll, workmen of various establishments and concerns like biscuit factory, hotel, bakeries, cold storage etc. To my mind this question is immaterial. The certificate of registration shows that the Union is registered for one trade only. The fact that its membership is drawn from many kinds of establishments dealing in divers varieties of trades which are connected with food stuffs will not make the registration of the union for all these different trades illegal, The registration remains for one trade though that trade may be wide enough to include or be connected with many varieties of occupations business.;