Banerjee, J. - (1.) This is a strange application by an Advocate of this Court, who feels himself aggrieved by an order made by an Industrial Tribunal for payment of costs against his client, a trade union.
(2.) The circumstances under which this application has been made are hereinafter set out in brief. The petitioner, Jitendra Nath Banerjee, says that he practises both in this Court and before Industrial Tribunals, in the New Secretariat Buildings, Calcutta. In paragraphs 2 to 6 of the petition, the petitioner gives an account of an unpleasant incident, on March 25, 1965, in which he alleges to have become involved in an unspecified case before the Fourth Industrial Tribunal. According to the petitioner the consequence of the incident was that the Tribunal became ill disposed towards the petitioner. That incident is not the subject of this application and is related only to serve as a background to the main allegation contained in the petition. The petitioner further states that on May 18, 1965 (wrongly described as April 18, 1965, at places in the petition), the petitioner was to appear before the same Tribunal in an industrial dispute between Messrs. Shalimar Paints Ltd. and their workmen of the head office. On that day, the petitioner alleges, he remained otherwise engaged before this Court and could not appear before the Tribunal in due time. Thereupon, the Tribunal made the following order:- "I had been waiting till 12 a.m. The learned lawyer for the Union is not present even now. The case is taken up for hearing. The Secy, of Union appears and says that Sri Banerjee would be coming within 10 minutes. I have still waited. It is 12-17 p.m. The Union is called. None is present for Union. No witnesses for union except one Sri B. Ghose, Vice-President of Turner Morrison Employees Union is present. My peon searched for the Secy, and witnesses of the union, but he could find none. The union did not even the Tribunal before 12 noon that Sri Banerji would be late. However, in the circumstances, though given sufficient time, the Union is absent and nobody from the side of the Union adduces evidence to support its claim. In the absence of any such evidence I find no reason to ask the company to adduce evidence. Sri Ginwalla for the company is present. Award reserved. To 24-5-65 for award."
(3.) In paragraph 13 of the petition, the petitioner alleges that later in the day he saw the Judge of the Tribunal in his chamber, explained the circumstances whereby he was prevented from appearing in time and regretted the inconvenience caused by his absence. Thereafter, he filed an application for the matter being put up for hearing. That application was considered by the Tribunal, on May 24, 1965, and the following order was made:- "Heard both sides on the petition filed by the Union on 18-5-65. The company was ready with witnesses on 18-5-65 but the union was in fault. The company has no objection to the hearing of the case on merits on terms. On the date fixed, the company incurred some costs. However I decide to hear the case on merits on condition that the Union shall pay to the company a cost of Rs. 50/- C.P. Fix 29-6-65 for hearing.";