LexINDIA YAMAHA MOTOR PVT. LTD. versus DHARAM SINGH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 10 S.C.R. 587 INDIA YAMAHA MOTOR PVT. LTD. v. DHARAM SINGH & ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos. 2393-2394 of 2008) AUGUST 20, 2014 [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.] Labour laws: A B Representation of workers before Industrial Tribunal - c Non-declaration of 113 workmen as permanent from the date of their employment - Meeting of the workmen involved in the controversy convened in which 71 of the 113 workmen resolved that, they would henceforth be represented by 5 of the workmen - Representation of 5 workmen (respondents) 0 out of 113 workmen before the Industrial Tribunal - Competence of respondents to be represented before the Tribunal challenged by the management - Whether s. 6-1 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, and r.40 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, would be applicable in a situation where the E workmen choose to present their case before the Industrial Tribunal, by themselves or by choosing a few amongst themselves on behalf of themselves - Held: s. 6-1 and Rule F 40 would be applicable, only in a situation where the workmen choose to be represented through a third party before the Industrial Tribunal - These provisions would be inapplicable, when the workmen choose to present their own case by themselves - In the instant situation, none of these provisions would be invoked - The choice of an individual to represent himself in a dispute before a Court or a Tribunal, is a vested inherent right - It is only the privilege of being represented G through someone else, that needs the sanction of law - s.6- 1, as also, Rule 40 de-alienate the extent to which the privilege can extend - Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s.6-1 - Industrial Disputes Rules -r.40 (1)(i)(c). 587 H 588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 10 S.C.R. A Representation of workers before Industrial Tribunal - Held: In case where more than one persons are involved collectively on the same side, it is open to them to choose one of more amongst themselves, to represent all of them - Such provision is also found incorporated under Order 1 Rule B VII/ of the CPC - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or.i Rule 8. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Section 6-1 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes C Act would be applicable only in a situation where, the workmen seek to be represented by others, and choose not to represent themselves in the proceedings. In such an exigency, it is imperative to make a choice in terms of the mandate contained in Section 6-1 of the Act. It is not D open for the workmen to be represented even through a legal practitioner, without the consent of the opposite party. In case the workmen desire to be represented by an officer of the Union, the choice can only be of such officer who has held the position in the Union, which had E subsisted for a period of more than two years. Under Rule 40 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules also, representation is contemplated through an officer of the Union, through an officer of the Federation of Unions, and in case of the absence of any Union, in the manner F stipulated under Rule 40(1 )(i)(c). [Para 10] [600-B-E] 2. The choice of an individual to represent himself in a dispute before a Court or a Tribunal, is a vested inherent right. It is only the privilege of being represented through someone else that needs the sanction of law. G Section 6-1 as also, Rule 40 de-alienate the extent to which the privilege can extend. It is well recognised in law, that in case where more than one persons are involved collectively on the same side, it is open to them to choose one of more amongst themselves, to represent all of them. H Such provision is also found incorporated under Order INDIA YAMAHA MOTOR PVT. LTD. v. DHARAM 589 SINGH 1 Rule VIII, CPC. In such view of the matter, it was open A to the respondents-workmen to choose one or more amongst themselves, to represent all of them before the Industrial Tribunal. [Paras 11, 14] [600-G-H; 603-F-G] B 3. The respondents-workmen were inducted into the employment of the appellant-management before 1989. Conciliation proceedings were initiated on their behalf by the employees Union in 1989. The claim which commenced in 1989 and was referred for adjudication by the State Government in 1998, has still not been taken up for consideration. Services of some of the workmen were C terminated during the pendency of the adjudicatory process. The appellant-m
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.