RAM PRASAD VISHWAKARMA versus THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

Citation: [1961] 3 S.C.R. 196 · Decided: 12-12-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

196 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961) 
z96o 
reached by any writ of the Allahabad High Court. In 
-
view of our conclusion that the application under 
Ths J. K. Cotton 1 5(. ) 
t 
• t . bl 
th 
J] 
t 
spinnin 
& 
c. a was no mam ama e, 
e appe an was on 
Weaving ~ills merits not entitled to any writ and on that ground the 
co., Ltd. 
appeal against the High Court's order must also be 
v. 
dismissed. 
The State 01 
It is unnecessary to consider the question whether 
Uttar Pt'adesh 
& ors. 
the High Court was right in its view as regards the 
preliminary objection and we express no opinion on 
Das Gupta J. the same. 
December ra. 
Both the appeals are accordingly dismissed with 
costs to the contesting respondent, There will be one 
set of hearing fee. 
Appeals dismissed. 
RAM PRASAD VISHWAKARMA 
v. 
THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL 
(P. B. G.AJENDR.AG.ADKAR, K. N. W .ANCHOO and 
K. C. D.As GUPTA, JJ.) 
Industrial Dispute-Dismissal of workman-Industrial Dis-
pute raised by union-Representation of workman before Tribunal-
Industrial Disputes Act, r947 (r4 of r947), ss. 2(k), 36. 
On the termination of the appellant's services by his 
employer an industrial dispute was raised by his union and 
the question of his dismissal along with a number of other dis-
putes was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. After several 
adjournments of the case the management and the union filed 
a joint petition of compromise settling all the points in dispute 
out of Court. Prior to this the appellant filed an application 
praying that he might be allowed to be represented by two of 
his co-workers instead of the Secretary of the Union in whom 
he had no faith and who had no authority to enter into the com-
promise on his behalf. This prayer was not allowed by the 
Tribunal which made an award in terms of the compromise. 
The appellant. thereupon, made an application to the High Court 
praying for a writ quashing the order of the Tribunal disallow-
ing him to be represented by a person of his own choice and 
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
197 
also for a direction to the Tribunal not to record the compro-
mise. The High Court summarily dismissed the Writ Petition. 
On appeal by special leave, 
Held, that the appellant was not entitled to separate repre-
sentation when already being represented by the Secretary of 
the nnion which espoused his cause. A dispute between an indi-
vidual workman and an employer cannot be an industrial dis-
pute. as defined ins. 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act unless it 
is taken up by a Union of Workmen or by a considerable number 
of workmen. When an individual workman becomes a party to 
a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act he is a party, not 
independently of the Union which has espoused his cause. 
Central Provinces Transport Service Ltd. v. Raghunath Gof>al 
Patwardhan, [1954] S.C.R. 956, followed. 
Although no general rule can be laid down in the matter, 
the ordinary rule should be that representation by an officer of 
the trade union should continue throughout the proceedings in 
the absence of exceptional circumstances justifying other repre-
sentation of the workman concerned. 
CIVIL APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal 
No. 31 of 1960. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated March 14, 1957, of the Patna High Court 
in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 165 of 1957. 
P. K. Chatterjee, for the appellant. 
S. P. Varma, for respondents Nos. 1 and 4. 
Nooni Ooomar Ohakravarti and B. P. Maheshwari, 
for respondent No. 2. 
1960. December 12. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
Ram Prasad 
Vishwakarma 
v 
The Chairman, 
Industrial 
Tribunal 
DAS GUPTA, J.-This appeal by special leave is 
Das Gupta J. 
against an order of the High Court of Judicature at 
Patna dismissing summarily an application of the pre-
sent appellant under Art. 226 and Art. 227 of the 
Constitution. The appellant was a workman employ-
ed in the Digha factory of Bata Shoe Company 
(Private) Limited, since October, 1943. On January 
13, 1954, the management of the company served him 
with a charge-sheet alleging that he had been doing 
anti-union activities inside the factory during the 
working hours and so was guilty under section 12B(l) 
of the Standing Orders and Rules of the company. On 
Ram Prasad 
Vishw~karma 
v. 
The Chairman, 
Indt4strial 
Tf'ibunal 
Das Gupta ]. 
198 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961] 
January 14, he submitted a written reply denying the 
charge and asking to be excused. On Janu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.