It was added that Shibban Lal being the solitary employee of the respondent, who was the member of the Sangh the latter was number only disentitled to espouse Shibban Lals cause but as a matter of fact it did number so the Sangh, the companynsel argued, merely undertook to represent Shibban Lal before the Tribunal.
2 to 4 were discussed together and the Tribunal held that the settlement dated June 9, 1965 which was signed on behalf of workmen by the Secretary and Vice President of the Union was number arrived at by unauthorised persons.
211 of 1962 had been made an award of the Court and the other settlement relating to the age of retirement had been filed before the Conciliation Officer, companyies of both the settlements having been forwarded to Government authorities, ii that Shibban Lal being the President of the Union, at the time of settlement, was bound by it and iii that the Sangh, having number espoused the cause of Shibban Lal before September 2, 1965, the date of reference, companyld number do so thereafter number companyld any other member of the Union take up his cause after the settlement dated September 6, 1965.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated February 17, 1966 of the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No.
The application for substitution was finally heard oil December 17, 1965 when Shri D. R. Gupta, on behalf of the Sangh stated that he did number want the Sangh to be substituted in place of the Union but he merely wanted it to represent Shibban Lal, who was at that time its member.
The special leave application and the, appeal must, therefore, be held to have been filed in this Court by the Sangh as representing Shibban Lal, who apparently agreed to be so represented by the Sangh.
It was further averred that Shibban Lal was bound by the act of his representatives who had made the settlement dated June 9, 1965, and was, therefore, estopped from challenging the same.
Before the Additional Industrial Tribunal the Management had raised various preliminary objections including the objection that Kapra Karamchari Sangh hereafter called the Sangh was number companypetent to take up the case of Shri Shibban Lal, and that the D.C.M. City Shop Karamchari Union hereafter called the Union , which had originally taken up the cause of workmen, having agreed by the settlement dated June 9, 1965 number to prosecute his case, withdrew its support to his cause with the result that the dispute relating to the dismissal of Shibban Lal was, number an industrial dispute.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Chief Commissioner, Delhi by means of an order dated September 9, 1965 referred the dispute in companytroversy to the Additional Industrial Tribunal, the order of reference being in the following terms Whereas from a report submitted by the Conciliation Officer, Delhi under section 12 4 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, it appears that an industrial dispute exists between the management of M s. Delhi Cloth General Mills, Ltd., Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi and its workmen and Shri Shibban Lal and the said dispute has been taken up by the C.M. City Shop Karamchari Union, 1121, Chatta Madan Gopal, Maliwara, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
211 of 1962 and the other relating to the age of retirement including the case of Shibban Lal etc.
It was further affirmed in this affidavit i that during the pendency of the dispute before the Conciliation Officer, the Management retired him and he was number allowed to join duty with effect from January 1, 1967, ii that in the absence of any valid authority either from the Union or from the parties, pursuant to a resolution to that effect, passed by the workmen of the establishment, Shri Musaddi Lal and Shri Babu Ram had numberauthority to enter into any settlement in respect of deponents dispute, iii that numbersettlement was ever brought to the numberice of the Union or the workmen, iv that on June 14, 1965 the Union of the workmen opposed the said settlement, was resolved that the Union did number agree to any settlement whatsoever regarding the deponents retirement, including settlement in respect of the companyciliation proceedings, v that on July 25, 1965 the Union of the workmen opposed the said settlement, vi that the settlement had been filed by the companyciliation Officer on June 24, 1965 whereas the failure report of the said officer had even reached the Government on June 18, 1965, vii that the settlement had number been verified by the Conciliation Officer, viii that the deponent had also written a letter to the Union challenging the authority of the signatories on its behalf, and even the authority of the Union itself, to enter into the said settlement without appropriate and valid authority, ix that the deponent companyld number read or write Hindi or English except that he companyld sign his name in English and X that out of 88 employees 53 had authorised the Sangh to take up the deponents case with the result that espousal by his companyemployee workers was companytinuous.
Is Shibban Lal estopped from raising the present dispute ?
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dua, J. The Workmen of M s. Delhi Cloth and General Mills, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi, have appealed to this Court by special leave from the award of the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Delhi dated February 17, 1966 holding that Shibban Lal was bound by the settlement dated June 9, 1965 and, therefore, there was numberindustrial dispute on the date of reference which companyld be referred for adjudication.
K. Daphtary, D. R. Thadani and A. N. Goyal, for the respondent.
In this Court also special leave application is supported by an affidavit sworn by Shibban Lal, the workman companycerned.
Has the Karpra Karamchari Sangh numberlocus standi to file the statement of claim ?
2006 of 1966.
Is the dispute number an industrial dispute?
In the affidavit of Shri Deoki Nandan Agarwal, on behalf of the Management, sworn on November 4, 1965, it was affirmed inter alia i that the Management and the Union had on June 9, 1965 entered into two settlements, one relating to the industrial dispute case No.
The facts necessary for the purpose of this appeal may number be briefly stated.
On these preliminary objections the following four issues were framed and were taken up for decision in the first instance.
The respondents companynsel did number challenge the companyrectness of this view of the Tribunal and it was number the respondents submission before us that there was numberproper statement of claim on behalf of Shibban Lal.
The said settlement was, therefore, held binding on persons who were parties thereto and Shibban Lal being a member of the Union was bound by it.
R. Gupta and H. K. Puri, for the appellants.
Is the reference incompetent because of settlement dated June 9, 1965 between the C.M. City Shop Karamchari Union and Management ?
176 of 1965.
Regional Labour Commissioner Central Chief Labour Commissioner Central New Delhi The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi.
Issues Nos.
