Thereafter numerous adjournments were given by the Tribunal on the joint petition for time filed by both the parties stating that all the disputes were going to be companypromised.
Prior to this, on January 12, 1957, the present appellant had made an application praying that D. N. Ganguli and M. P. Gupta, two of his companyworkers might be allowed to represent his case before the Tribunal instead of Fateh Singh, the Secretary of the Union and that he did number want his case to be represented by Fateh Singh as he had numberfaith in him.
The case was however adjourned to January 21, 1957, for filing a companypromise or hearing.
On that date a further petition was again filed and a further extension of time was allowed till February 1, 1957.
Upto January 12, 1957, when the appellant filed his application for separate representation, this officer, was in charge of the companyduct of the proceedings on behalf of the appellant.
On December 20, 1956, however a fresh application for time was filed but it was stated that agreement had already been reached on some of the matters and opportunity was asked for to settle the other matters.
On November 16, 1956, the Tribunal made an order fixing December 20, 1956, for filing companypromise or hearing.
The appellant filed his application to the Patna High Court on March 13, 1957, praying for an issue of an appropriate writ or direction quashing the Tribunals order of February 26, 1957, by which the Tribunal had rejected his prayer for representation by a person of his own choice in place of Fateh Singh, the Secretary of the Union.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 14, 1957, of the Patna High Court in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No.
The appellant was the member of a trade union and he was actually represented in the proceedings before the Tribunal by an officer of that Union, its Secretary, Fateh Singh.
165 of 1957.
The Union through this officer, filed a written statement on his behalf.
After written statements were filed by the Union and the management, February 20, 1956, was fixed for hearing at Patna.
Tribunal and by an order dated March 11, 1957, an award in terms of the petition of companypromise was made.
On January 14, he submitted a written reply denying the charge and asking to be excused.
On January 31, the parties, that is, the management and the Union filed a joint petition of companypromise settling all points of disputes out of companyrt.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS GUPTA, J. This appeal by special leave is against an order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dismissing summarily an application of the present appellant under Art.
On January 13, 1954, the management of the companypany 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 1 of the Standing Orders and Rules of the companypany.
This prayer was number allowed by the.
On March 7, 1957, the appellant filed a fresh petition stating that he had number authorised Fateh Singh to enter into any agreement in his case and praying that the agreement filed in respect of his case should number be accepted and that he and his agents should be heard before the disposal of the case.
December 12.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
An industrial dispute was raised on this question of dismissal by the Union and was referred along with a number of other disputes to the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, by a numberification dated April 29, 1955.
31 of 1960.
The appellant was a workman employed in the Digha factory of Bata Shoo Company Private Limited, since October, 1943.
This application was dismissed by the Tribunal by an order dated February 26, 1957.
Nooni Coomar Chakravarti and B. P. Maheshwari, for respondent No.
P. Varma, for respondents Nos.
On January 15, the management made an order terminating his services with effect from January 18, 1954.
227 of the Constitution.
K. Chatterjee, for the appellant.
226 and Art.
1 and 4.
The High Court dismissed this application summarily.
Prayer was made in this petition also for a direction on the Tribunal number to record the companypromise in so far as it related to the appellants case and to give its award without reference to the settlement and on proper adjudication of the matter.
It is against that order of dismissal that the present appeal by special leave has been preferred.
