Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, employees of Empress Mills Retail Sales Division, challenged an order of the Industrial Court dated 16th October 1995 which held that they had no legal right or locus standi to appear and prosecute Reference (ICN) 4/1978. The reference was made by the appropriate government at the instance of respondent No. 4, a representative trade union under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act (BIR Act). The dispute arose from differences in service conditions between employees in the Sales Division and those on the production side. The union made demands under Section 42(2) of the BIR Act, and after conciliation failed, a reference was filed. The employer opposed the claim, arguing that the Sales Division was covered by the Bombay Shops Establishment Act, not the BIR Act. The Industrial Court initially upheld this objection, but the High Court in Writ Petition 2262/1984 set aside that order on 13/3/1992 and directed the Industrial Court to decide the reference on merits. During the pendency of that writ petition, respondent No. 2 (Empress Mills through Maharashtra State Textile Corporation) was added as a party. After the High Court's order, the Industrial Court passed the impugned order on 16/10/1995, holding that the petitioners had no locus standi. The High Court examined the provisions of the BIR Act, particularly Section 78, and held that under the scheme of the Act, only a representative union or an employer can initiate proceedings. Individual workmen have no independent right to prosecute a reference. However, the Industrial Court has discretion to allow workmen to be heard if their interests are affected. The court found that the Industrial Court had not exercised its discretion properly and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order and directing the Industrial Court to decide the reference afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Locus Standi - Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 - Section 78 - Individual workmen have no independent right to prosecute a reference made at the instance of a representative union under the BIR Act, as the Act provides for collective bargaining through representative unions. However, the Industrial Court has discretion to allow workmen to be heard if their interests are affected. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether individual workmen have locus standi to appear and prosecute a reference made under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, when the reference was initiated by the representative union but the union subsequently failed to prosecute it.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 16/10/1995, and directed the Industrial Court to decide the reference afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
Law Points
- Locus standi of individual workmen to prosecute reference under BIR Act
- Interpretation of Section 78 of BIR Act
- Right of workmen to be heard in proceedings initiated by representative union
