AMITAVA LALA, J. - (1.) This writ petition is arising out of Order No. 39, dated January 28, 2003, passed by the learned judge, Eighth Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta. The issue is whether the single workman can represent his case individually even after initiation of the proceeding by the employees registered union.
(2.) Dr. Tapas Banerjee, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the employer-company (hereinafter called "the management") contended that whenever a dispute is raised by a union on behalf of a workman, such dispute is to be construed as a "collective dispute". Therefore, the individual workman loses his locus standi as soon as he represents his case before the Tribunal through the union. He cited a judgment in Ram Prasad Vishwakarma v. Chairman, Industrial Tribunal, Patna, AIR 1961 SC 857 : 1961-I-LLJ-504, to establish his case wherefrom I find a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that when a dispute concerning an individual workman is taken up by the union, of which the workman is a member, as a matter affecting workmen in general and on that basis a reference is made under the Industrial Disputes Act, the individual workman cannot ordinarily claim to be heard independently of the union. Dr. Banerjee has drawn my attention to the order of reference to establish that the same was made with the dispute referred in between the management and the workman through the employees registered union.
(3.) He further contended that in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Hindustan Steel Employees Union 1998-I-LLJ-704, where a Division Bench of this High Court held that in making an order of reference the appropriate Government merely sees whether an industrial dispute has come into existence or not. If the industrial dispute has come into existence and the espousal of the cause is made by the other workmen or the union of workmen it becomes wholly irrelevant. The Court has to see the substance and not the form of the order.;