- (1.) This writ petition has been filed against the orders passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Calcutta. Petitioner has stated in the writ petition that he was appointed by the respondent No. 3 as Traffic Assistant on and from August 2, 1976. But although he was appointed as a Traffic Assistant, the petitioner mainly discharged clerical functions and the respondent No. 3 considered the case of the petitioner under the wage revision from time to time and granted increments. All of a sudden on May 31, 1989 the respondent No. 3 displayed an office note on the board retrenching 28 workmen including the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 is the 'Union' of the workmen to which the petitioner also belongs. Over this retrenchment, the respondent No. 2, 'Union' raised an industrial dispute seeking reinstatement of all those 28 workmen including the petitioner for non-compliance of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. Said dispute was referred to the respondent No. 1 for adjudication. Written statements on behalf of some workmen were submitted. But the petitioner was surprised that during the pendency of the said adjudication, the Regional Labour Commission at Calcutta attempted to isolate the petitioner from the purview of the pending order of reference. As such, due to this development the petitioner sought for the intervention of the learned Tribunal to allow him to represent his case individually through his advocate and for that reason filed an application on December 30, 2003. On February 16, 2004 the learned Tribunal without considering the merit of the application rejected the said prayer of the petitioner. However by the selfsame order, the petitioner was allowed to conduct his case by appearing in person. Accordingly the petitioner prepared his written statement and served the same on the respondents No. 2 and 3. But the learned Tribunal declined to accept the written statement, as filed by the petitioner and fixed the matter for cross-examination of the witnesses. According to the petitioner the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that as an individual workman, the petitioner has every right to represent his case though the dispute has been raised by the union. In fact, the learned Tribunal failed to ascertain as to whether the petitioner dissociated himself with the union or not. The order, as passed by the learned Tribunal, has certainly jeopardised the individual rights of the petitioner to submit and to defend his own case. AS such, the petitioner has been compelled to file this writ petition for getting appropriate remedial justice for mitigating the hardship caused to him as a retrenched employee.
(2.) The writ petition has not been contested by the respondents. It appears from the affidavit of service that the copy of the writ petition was duly served upon all the respondents. But for reasons best known to them, the respondents preferred not to appear before this Court and contest the petition. Be that as it may, let us now consider the case as to whether there is any merit in the writ petition or not. It is also admitted position that the petitioner along with others were retrenched by the respondent No. 3. It is also the admitted position that the respondent No. 2, the workers' union, raised an industrial dispute and the said dispute was referred to the respondent No. 1 Tribunal for disposal. If we look into the orders, as passed by the learned Tribunal, then it will appear that the respondent No. 2 was contesting the matter on behalf of all the retrenched workers. But subsequently, present petitioner due to some reasons, was of the impression that his interest was not being looked after properly by the said union and as such he filed an application before the learned Tribunal and firstly prayed for contesting the said reference through a lawyer and secondly to contest the same in his individual capacity. But while the learned Tribunal rejected the prayer for being represented through lawyer, he was pleased to allow the petitioner to contest the matter in his individual capacity. But subsequently, on February 20, 2004 the learned Tribunal refused to allow the petition filed by the petitioner dated December 30, 2003. I fail to understand as to how the learned Tribunal could pass two contradictory orders dated February 16, 2004 and February 20, 2004. As per provisions of Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 a workman has been given right to contest his case in his individual capacity. So far as the present case is concerned, it appears that the reference in question was initially being contested by the concerned workers' union to which the petitioner was also a member. But subsequently due to changed circumstances the petitioner proposed to contest the matter in his individual capacity by filing separate written statement. Now question may arise whether the petitioner can be permitted to contest the reference case in his individual capacity when the union has already taken up the matter. In this respect the learned advocate for the petitioner has cited a decision reported in Humbolt Wedag India (P) Ltd. v. Eighth Industrial Tribunal and others 2004-I-LLJ-315 (Cal). It has been clearly laid down in the said decision that a workman has got every right to represent his case individually although initially the proceeding was initiated by the said workman's registered union. The learned single Judge in the said decision discussed the entire matter and the law relating to Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and thereafter he was of the opinion that a workman has got every right to represent his case in his individual capacity irrespective of the fact that the reference was initiated at the instance of the union. In view of the said decision and the law as provided under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, I am of opinion that the learned Tribunal was not justified in refusing to accept the written statement of the concerned workman/petitioner and thereby in not allowing him to contest the matter in his individual capacity. To my mind, it is a fit case where the writ petition should be allowed and appropriate directions should be given to the learned Tribunal in this respect.
(3.) Considering all these things, the writ petition is allowed. The learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Calcutta is directed to allow the petitioner to contest the Reference Case bearing No. 33/99 in his individual capacity by filing written statement. The learned Tribunal is directed to fix a date for that purpose for filing the written statement of the present petitioner and thereafter to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.;