DEOKINANDAN PRASAD AND ORS. Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application by the five petitioners arises under these circumstances. Rohtas Industries Ltd., Dalmianagar and Ashoka Cement Ltd., Dalmianagar, have got various kinds of industries situated at Dalmianagar in the State of Bihar. The Works Director and the Works Manager of the said Industries are respectively respondents 3 and 4. There are two Unions known as Rohtas Industries Mazdoor Sangh and Rohtas Industries Staff Union, Secretaries of which are respectively respondents 5 and 6 to this writ application, operating at Dalmianagar. The workmen of respondents 3 and 4 made demands in the year 1962 from the Management for revision of dearness allowance and bonus for the years 1960 -61 and 1961 -62. The matter was referred to the arbitration of Shri K.S.V. Raman (retired I.C.S.) under Sec. 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947) hereinafter called the Act. Shri K.S.V. Raman as an Arbitrator gave his award which was published in the Bihar Gazette dated the 15th June, 1964. According to the award certain amounts of bonus and dearness allowance were to be given to the workmen of the Industries. The two Managements filed two writ petitions in this Court which were numbered as M.J.C. 1105 of 1964 and M.J.C. 1106 of 1964 to challenge the award of Shri Raman. The two writ applications were dismissed by this Court on the 22nd August, 1966, on grant of certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court, the Managements filed Civil Appeals 2142 and 2143 of 1966. It may be mentioned at this stage that on the basis of the agreements entered into between the Management of the two Industries and the workmen represented by Rohtas Industries Mazdoor Sangh and Rohtas Industries Staff Union (respondents 5 and 6 respectively), the two Civil Appeals were disposed of on the 13th of September, 1967. The Court recorded the terms of the agreement and disposed of the two appeals accordingly. In the meantime on behalf of the workmen fresh demands were made sometime in the year 1965. The petitioners claim that they had raised those demands on the 28th of September, 1965 as members of the Action Committees representing some 4,000 workmen of the two Industries. This fact is not accepted by the Management. Be that as it may, the industrial disputes raised in the year 1965 were referred by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal, Patna, for adjudication in Reference Nos. 17 and 18 of 1966. The copies of the reference notifications are Annexures B and B/1 to writ application. On their face, they show that the Governor of Bihar was of the opinion that industrial disputes existed or were apprehended between the Management of the Rohtas Industries Ltd. and the Ashoka Cement Ltd., Dalmianagar, and their workmen represented by Rohtas Industries Mazdoor Sangh.

(2.) It would be convenient to take up points (i) and (ii) together. In this connection firstly it is to be pointed out that there is no prayer in this writ application to set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 5.10.66 refusing the prayer of the petitioners to be added as party to the References nor have the petitioners given any copy of the petition filed by them or the order made by the Tribunal. The signatures of 4,000, workmen, the genuineness of which was not accepted by respondents 3 and 4, as stated in Paragraph 20 of the petition, reading this Paragraph in the context, seem to have been filed after the agreements were filed. The Tribunal, therefore, gave an opportunity to them to have their say in regard to the agreements. But then the petitioners did not make a prayer to be added as party in accordance with Clause (c) of Sub -section (1) of Sec. 36. They say that they are not member of any Trade Union and in that event they could not be authorised to represent certain workmen in the manner prescribed. But no such authorisation was filed at the time when the application was made for adding them as party. From the impugned award it does not appear that the Unions which had entered into compromise were acting against the interest of the workmen. On that ground for the first time, it is difficult to take a view in this Court that the petitioners ought to have been added as parties to the References.

(3.) They, however, have got a right to impugn the award, if it is assailable in law. In the subsequent affidavits filed on their behalf, it has been asserted that they are workmen working in the Industries in question. This fact is not denied on behalf of the Managements. On the principle, therefore, that parties to the References are the workmen, any workman affected by the award may challenge it in this Court by an appropriate application under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. There locus standi to challenge the award could not be seriously disputed on behalf of the Managements. I am, therefore, of the opinion that their grievance in this Court that they ought to have been added as parties to the References cannot be entertained and allowed. But, undoubtedly, they have a right to challenge the award (Annexure I).