- (1.) A trade union registered under the Trade Union Act, drawing its membership amongst the employees of the respondent-company, espouses the cause of its members, has filed the present writ petition with the prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the State Government to exercise its powers under Section 4-Ka of the U. P. Industrial Dis putes Act (hereinafter referred to as the U. P. Act) and refer the matter in dispute arising out of the "imposition of ceiling on dearness allowance payable to the workmen" as raised vide C. B. Case No. 11 (Ga)/75 for adjudication to an appropriate authority constituted under the U. P. Act.
(2.) THE said writ petition was filed through its Chairman R. P. Bidani, who has also sworn the affidavit and is represented by Shri Arvind Kumar, Advocate and Shri K. P. Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. During the pendency of the writ petition, an application on behalf of the Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha Ghaziabad Centre, Ghaziabad through its Chairman, Pradhuman Kumar Sharma was preferred on 18-9-1991 for the withdrawal of the writ petition as there existed no dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 in respect of the matter raised before the conciliation of ficer in C. B. Case No. 11 (Ga)/75. The said application was vehemently opposed by the petitioner's unions represented by Shri R. P. Bidani, who has initially filed the writ petition, alleging that the manage ment with a view to see that the petitioner's union does not get the relief in the writ petition, through some persons claiming themselves to be the office bearers of the petitioner's Union, have filed an application before this Court with the prayer to treat the petition as in fructuous or permit them to withdraw the same. It was averred that the President of Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha by means of its letter dated 30th October, 1992 had informed the factory manager, Ghaziabad that just on the basis of a fraudulent paper indicating that a general body meeting was alleged to have held on 30th November, 1990, the management proceeded to collude certain employees of the management and attempted to impose new terms and conditions of service on its new constituent and any action taken by anyone, in pursuance of the alleged general body meeting dated 30-11-1990, was itself illegal and void.
(3.) IT was further alleged that Shri Pradhuman Kumar Sharma has no locus standi whatsoever to prefer the applica tion for withdrawal of the writ petition. IT was also denied that the petitioner's union had ever signed any settlement with the management on 5-5-1991, as such ques tion 6f so-called clause 20 (5) of the so-called settlement dated 3-5-1991 being ap plicable to the subject matter of the writ petition did not arise as dispute still sub sisted, the writ petition had not become infructuous. IT was vehemently denied that Shri Pradhuman Kumar Sharma was not the Chairman of Hindustan Lever Maz door Sabha, Ghaziabad Centre, Ghazia bad and writ petition was not filed by him and such a dispute can only be decided by the process of adjudication and not other wise. The case of management as well as Shri Pradhuman Kumar Sharma before this Court appears to be is that a chartered of demand was served by the union repre sented by Shri Pradhuman Kumar Sharma on 15-9-1984 on Lipton India Ltd. , which step into the shoes of Hindustan Lever Ltd. After the transfer of the Union by the Hindustan Lever Ltd. to Lipton India Ltd. and on the basis of the said chartered of demand a settlement was signed with the management on 3-5-1991, On the other hand the case of the union represented by Shri R. P. Bidani is that they have never submitted any such chartered of demand and have not entered into any settlement with the management on 3-5-1991.;