HINDUSTAN SALTS LTD. Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner (Hindustan Salts Limited) is a Government Company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. The following industrial dispute between the petitioner and its workmen represented by the second respondent -Union (Salt Mines Labourers Union) was referred for adjudication to the first respondent (Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Himachal Pradesh) under sub -section (2) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by an order dated August 23, 1973, Annexure -PC issued by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India ; "Having regard to the capacity of the industry to pay, whether the demand of Salt Mines Labour Union, Drang, Mandi, for bringing daily rated workers employed in the sale mines of Messrs Hindustan Salts Limited, Mandi, on monthly pay rolls is legal and justified? If not, to what reliefs are the daily rated workmen entitled - The reference is pending adjudication since then before the first respondent.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the second respondent was being represented in the adjudication proceedings through Shri Mohan Lal (respondent No. 3) in his capacity as the President of the Union and that one Shri Dhani Ram, Secretary of the Union, actually concucted the adjudication proceedings for and on behalf of the said Union as its authorised representative.

(3.) On October 25, 1986, an application was received by the first respondent purporting to have been made by Shri A. N. Kapoor (respondent No. 2 -A) in his capacity as the General Secretary of the second respondent - Uoion stating that a vote of no confidence had been passed against respondent No. 3 and other office bearers and members of the Executive Committee of the Union in a special general meeting which was held on October 10, 1986 and that new office bearers and members of the Executive Committee had also been elected in the said meeting. The communication proceeded to state that the second respondent -Union would be henceforth represented in the pending reference by the new office bearers and requested that the case be adjourned in order to enable those office bearers to prepare and argue the case.