RAM UDGAR SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT C N DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by Ramudgar Singh against the Presiding Officer, Labour Court of Criota Nagpur Division at Ranchi, the Bihar Electricity Board through its Chairman Sri R. Mishra and Md. Arif, Personnel Officer (Labour), Bihar State Electricity Board. The petitioner was an employee under the Bihar Electricity Board. He was dismissed by the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Ranchi Electrical Circle, on the 4th of December 1962 from his service. The Electricity Board which was constituted under the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act made an application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court for approval of their action of dismissal of the petitioner, On the 3rd of July, 1963, opposite party No. 3, Md. Arif, Personnel Officer of the Bihar State Electricity Board, filed his appearance on behalf of the employer before the Labour Court. The General Secretary of the Bihar State Electricity Supply Workers Union was authorised under the provisions made under Section 36 (1) (a) to represent the petitioner before the Labour Court. He raised an objection against Md. Arif's appearance mainly on the ground that he was not a person who could answer the descriptions given in any of the sub-clauses of Sub-section (2) of Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act. This objection was not accepted by the Labour Court by its order passed on the 30th July, 1963. The petitioner challenges that order and wants that to be quashed in the present proceeding,

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took us to Sections 2, 26, 31 and 32 to contend that Md. Arif cannot be deemed to be an employer in any sense in the case before the Labour Court, and as such, he cannot be permitted to appear before it. Section 2 (g) defines "employer" and says "employer" means:

(3.) Learned counsel then referred to Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act where "industrial dispute" has been defined as meaning any dispute or differences between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person. There is no variance between the parties about the application of that definition to the present case. Section 25 provides for penalties for workmen and employer in certain cases. Section 31 lays down that any employer who contravenes the provisions of Section 33 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Section 32 which was very much stressed upon by leaned counsel for the petitioner is in the following words: