B.N.BANERJEE, J. - (1.) A number of industrial disputes between River Stream Navigation Co., Ltd., and India General Navigation and Railway Co., Ltd. (respondent 3) and their workmen represented by (i) Paschim Banga Mazdoor Congress (respondent 4) and 00 Inland Steam Navigation Workers Union (respondent 5) were referred by respondent 1, State Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, to the fourth industrial tribunal for adjudication. The order of reference bears the date 23 November 1960.
(2.) THE respondent 6, Joint Steamer Companies Employees' Union, claims to be a trade union of a section of the non -clerical staff of respondent 3 companies, numbering about 287. On 16 January 1961, workmen numbering 171 (including the two petitioners), who are members of the respondent 6 union, filed an application before the fourth industrial tribunal praying that they be allowed to file written statement and participate in the adjudication represented by their own lawyer or a representative of respondent 6 union. The application was opposed by respondent 5 union but was consented to by respondent 3 companies.
(3.) THE fourth industrial tribunal rejected the application being of the opinion: (a) The workers' union is apparently an old anion existing for a very long time. It is not at all clear to me how the workers' union representing the majority of the workmen can be said to be not competent enough to protect the interest of the workmen as a whole. (b) In this context, I have considered the affidavit sworn by Kestopada Ghosh, who is the general secretary of the workers' union. In Para. 8 of the affidavit It is alleged that pending the proceeding, the employees' union and the companies have entered into a so -called agreement to defeat the interest of the workmen. There is no counter -affidavit filed by the employees' union as against this allegation. which is apparently of considerable importance. Prima facie, it appears to me that the workers' union made party in the order of reference is competent to represent the cause of the entire body of workmen in the proceedings before me, as the said unions represent the vast majority of the workmen. it is quite possible that there would exist a large number of unions in a particular industry. If any dispute arises as between workmen and workmen as to the representative character of the rival unions, such a matter does not constitute an industrial dispute. Besides this union seeking representation, has within it only a small number of workmen. This dispute as referred to me for adjudication cannot be said to be in any way connected with any dispute as between workmen and workmen over any such matter. I cannot, therefore, enter, within the scope of this reference, into any question as to any rivalry existing between two anions.Finally, therefore, apart from the fact that I cannot amend or add to theorder of reference and make any addition of party union, la the order of reference, the employees' anion failed to make out a case justifying their claim to file written statement. These 171 workmen cannot, therefore, claim any separate representation in course of this proceeding under Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, either by employees' union or by any lawyer as chosen by them. ;