Writ Petition No.1890 of 1997

10th December, 1997

Petitioner Counsel: Mrs. MITRA DAS with Mr. N. C. PRABHU i/by M/s. MANSUKHLAL HIRALAL & CO.
Respondent Counsel: Mr. C. U. SINGH with Mr. KIRAN BAPAT

Cases Cited:
1993 I CLR 253 [Para 4]
1976 II LLJ 409 [Para 5]
1975 (1) LLJ 458 [Para 5]
AIR 1979 SC 65 [Para 5]
1995 Lab IC 1591 [Para 11]
1995 II CLR 823 [Para 11]

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- Rule.

2. Learned Counsel for the Respondents waive service. By consent, made returnable and heard forthwith.

3. The Petitioners herein had objected to the workmen Respondent being represented by their legal advisor who is a practising advocate in a pending domestic enquiry.

The Complaint was filed by the workmen before the Labour Court contending that the action of the Petitioners in not permitting an office bearer of the Union to represent him at the domestic enquiry amounts to an unfair labour practice. An application for interim relief was also moved. The Labour Court by order dated 5th April 1997 permitted the Complainant to be represented by the legal advisor. Aggrieved by the said action, the Petitioners herein preferred a revision application before the Industrial Court at Mumbai. The Industrial Court by its order dated 1st September 1997 rejected the revision application preferred by the Petitioner herein. In so holding the Industrial court proceeded on the footing that the jurisdiction of the Revisional Court is limited. It further held that the documents filed on record including the Constitution of Union showed that the legal adviser was shown as an office bearer of the Union. Minutes of the meeting whereby Mr. Pai was appointed as legal adviser were also considered. The Industrial Court thereafter held that considering the definition of Office bearer, provision of the Model Standing Orders and documentary material on record, it could not be said that by any stretch of imagination that the findings of the lower Court are not supported by the material on record. For the aforesaid reason, the revision application has been rejected.

4. Counsel for the Petitioners has contended that a legal adviser has no right to represent the workmen unless the law itself provides and secondly that considering the provisions of Section 20 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short MRTU & PULP Act) read with Rules 18, 19 and 20 of the Rules, it is only the Office Bearers who are set out in Rule 18 who have a right to represent the workmen at the domestic enquiry. The legal adviser it is pointed out is not such an office bearer and consequently the order is liable to be set aside.

In support of the contentions, learned Counsel has relied on various Judgments including the Judgment in the case of Crescent Dyes & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Ram Naresh Tripathi: 1993 I CLR 253 for the proposition that unless the law specifically confers a right, the delinquent employee has no right to be represented at the domestic enquiry. I am not referring to the other Judgments as in my opinion they reiterate the same proposition as in Crescent Dyes (supra) and hence there is no necessity of merely reproducing them because they have been cited.

5. On the other hand Counsel for the Respondents contends that the legal adviser in terms of Clause 15(b) of the Constitution of the Complainant Union is an Office bearer of the Union. Even though an office bearer is a legal practitioner that by itself cannot bar the office bearer from participating in the proceedings merely because he is a lawyer. In terms of the Model Standing Orders a delinquent workman can be represented by an office bearer of the Union or by any of his fellow workmen. Learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the provision of Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and more specifically to the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Paradip Port Trust Vs. Their Workmen (reported in 1976 II L.L.J. 409) for the proposition that even though there was a bar under Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act for representation by a lawyer, a lawyer who is an office bearer of a trade Union or officer of an association of employers has the right to represent the parties. For the same proposition reliance has also been placed on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of A. D. Shastri Vs. S. D. Patil and another, (reported in 1975 (1) LLJ 458). In reply to the second submission on behalf of the Petitioners, learned Counsel points out that the provisions of MRTU & PULP Act do not exclude or take away rights conferred on the delinquent workman by any other Act including the Industrial Employments Standing Orders Act and Model Standing Orders framed thereunder. Reliance for that purpose has been placed on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board and another Vs. Hari Shankar Jain and others : AIR 1979 SC 65. It is further pointed out that there is no provision under the Industrial Disputes Act which excludes the provision of any other Act. It is pointed out that the MRTU & PULP Act has to be read as a supplemental legislation conferring additional rights in addition to what rights have been conferred on the workman by other Acts.

6. In so far as the first submission is concerned that a legal practitioner who happens to be an office bearer has no right to represent, the argument has to be rejected at the threshold. First and foremost a legal advisor in terms of the Constitution of the Respondent No.1 Union is an office bearer. Further if the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act under which the draft Model Standing Orders have been framed permits a workman to be represented by office bearers of the Union and/or his fellow workman merely because an office bearer happens to be a lawyer could not bar such an office bearer from participating in the domestic enquiry unless there is an express provision for exclusion. The Apex Court while interpreting Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act where there is a bar of representation by a lawyer before the Industrial Tribunal without permission of the other side and leave of the Tribunal has interpreted Section 36. The Apex Court has held in Paradip Port Trust (supra) that even under Section 36 a lawyer who happens to be an advisor can appear before the Industrial Tribunal if he is an office bearer of the Union. In these circumstances the first submission must be rejected on the same analogy.

7. That bring us to second contention that the provisions of Section 20 of the MRTU & PULP Act read with Rules 18, 19 and 20 restrict right of representation to specific office bearers and a legal advisor not being one of the office bearers contemplated in Rule 18, ha no right to represent a delinquent workman at the domestic enquiry. Sections 20 and 21 of the MRTU & PULP Act read as under:-

"20. Rights of recognised union:

(1) Such officers, members of the office staff and members of a recognised union as may be authorised by or under rules made in this behalf by the State Government shall, in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed have a right.-

(a) to collect sums payable by members to the union on the premises, where wages are paid to them;

(b to put up or cause to be put up a notice board on the premises of the undertaking in which its members are employed and affix or cause to be affixed notice thereon;

(c) for the purpose of the prevention or settlement of an industrial dispute.-

(i) to hold discussion on the premises of the undertaking with the employees concerned, who are the members of the union but so as not to interfere with the due working of the undertaking;

(ii) to meet and discuss, with an employer or any person appointed by him in that behalf, the grievances of employees employed in his undertaking;

(d) to appear on behalf of any employee or employees in any domestic or departmental inquiry held by the employer.

(2) Where there is a recognised union for any undertaking,-

(a) that union alone shall have the right to appoint its nominees to represent workmen on the Works Committee constituted under Section 3 of the Central Act;

(b) no employee shall be allowed to appear or act or be allowed to be represented in any proceedings under the Central Act (not being a proceeding in which the legality or propriety of an order of dismissal, discharge, removal, retrenchment, termination of service, or suspension of an employee is under consideration), except through recognised union and the decision arrived at, or order made, in such proceeding shall be binding on all the employees in such undertaking;

and accordingly, the provisions of the Central Act, that is to say, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, XIV of 1947, shall stand amended in the manner and to the extent specified in Schedule I.

21. Right to appear or act in proceedings relating to certain unfair labour practices:-

(1) No employee in an undertaking to which the provisions of the Central Act for the time being apply, shall be allowed to appear or act or allowed to be represented in any proceeding relating to unfair labour practices specified in items 2 and 6 of Schedule IV of this Act except through the recognised union:

Provided that where there is no recognised union to appear, the employee may himself appear or act in any proceeding relating to any such unfair labour practices.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Bombay Act, no employee in any industry to which the provisions of the Bombay Act, for the time being apply, shall be allowed to appear or act or allowed to be represented in any proceeding relating to unfair labour practices specified in items 2 and 6 of Schedule IV of this Act except through the representative of employees entitled to appear under Section 30 of the Bombay Act."

Rules 18, 19 and 20 framed under the MRTU & PULP Act read as under:-

"18. Permission to do acts under Section 20,-

Subject, to the provisions of rules 19, 20 and 21, the President, the Vice President, the General Secretary, the Secretary, the Joint Secretary, the assistant Secretary and the Treasurer of a recognised union shall, by the employer to do all or any of the acts mentioned in sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) for the purpose of the prevention or settlement of an industrial dispute be permitted of clause (c) of Section 20.

19. Permission to hold discussions on the premises of the undertaking with the employees concerned who are members of the recognised union:

Provided that,-

(a) the union shall intimate in advance to the employer the name or names of the officer or officers authorised for the purpose and the name of the department or departments in which the members concerned are employed and

(b the discussions shall be held in such manner as not to interfere with the working of the undertaking.

20. Mode of settling grievances. The officers of a recognised union specified in rule 18 and such officers or any union (other than a recognised union) shall have right-

(1) to meet and discuss with an employer or any persons appointed by him for the purpose, the grievances of its members employed in his undertaking (including grievances relating to discharge, removal, retrenchment, termination of service or dismissal or suspension), subject to the following conditions, namely:

(a) the discussion shall ordinarily be held on two days in a week during such hours as may be fixed by agreement between the employer and the union except in urgent cases when it may be held on any day at any time by previous appointment.

(b) the union shall ordinarily communicate in advance to the employer the nature of the grievances which it desires to discuss.

(c) the name of the officer authorised in this behalf shall either be communicated to the employer in advance or such officer shall carry a letter of authority, in Form G (and such letter of authority duly signed by the General Secretary or Secretary of the Union shall be sufficient authority for the persons authorised to meet and discuss with the employer or any person appointed by him the grievances of its members) and

(ii) to appear on behalf of any of its members employed in the undertaking in any domestic or departmental inquiry held by the employer."

8. It will be necessary also to refer to the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as "the Standing Orders Act"). Standing Orders Act was enacted with the purpose of defining with sufficient precision certain conditions of employment in industrial establishments. Section 2A of the Act made applicable model standing orders to every industrial establishment to which the Act applies until such time as standing orders are certified for the establishment. Certification is thereafter done by virtue of Section 5 of the Act. In terms of Section 10 of the Act, the standing orders finally certified are not liable for modification until the expiry of six months from the date on which the standing orders or the amendment to the standing orders or the last modifications came into operation. Where model standing orders have not been amended as aforesaid they shall continue to be in force until the expiry of one year from the date on which they are to expire under Section 2A. There is a procedure to modify the standing orders. By virtue of Section 12A notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 3 to 12, for the period commencing on the date on which the Act becomes applicable to an industrial establishment and ending with the date on which the standing orders as finally certified under the Act came into operation, the prescribed model standing orders shall be deemed to be adopted in that establishment. Rules have been made where by model standing orders for various categories of workmen have been framed in the State of Maharashtra and which are known as the Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959. In terms of standing orders 25(4) where an employer chooses to conduct an inquiry in respect of a misconduct the workman is entitled to appear in person or by a co-workman working in the same department or by any office bearer of a trade union of which he is a member. Similarly, model standing orders in so far as the clerical or supervisory staff are concerned, representation is governed by standing order 32(4). Here also a workman against whom an enquiry is contemplated for a misconduct is entitled to appear himself or by a fellow workman working in the same department or by any office bearer of the trade union of which he is a member. The Central Government has also framed Model Standing Orders in terms of the rules framed by it. In so far as establishments other than coal mines are concerned, representation in disciplinary proceedings is covered by model standing orders 14(4)(ba). The workman in such a case is entitled to appear in person or be represented by an office bearer of a trade union of which he is a member. From a reading of the above, where the employer chooses to conduct an enquiry against the workman for a misconduct, in terms of the model standing orders applicable by the State Rules or Central Rules a workman can appear either in person or can be defended by a co-workman and/or can be represented by any office bearer of a trade union. These model standing orders will continue to be in operation until they are amended or replaced by certified standing orders to the contrary.

9. If the Sections of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act and the rules are read together it would appear as if only those Officers/members of the office staff and members of a recognised union as may be authorised have the right to appear on behalf of an employee or employees in any domestic or departmental enquiry held by the employer. In terms of Rule 18 the Office Bearers have been set out. In terms of Rule 20(ii) it is only these office bearers who can represent its members in any domestic or departmental enquiry held by the employer. If this be the case then, what happens if the employee is not a member of any union or for that matter not of a recognised union or even for that matter if he is a member of a recognised union and is not willing to be represented by the recognised union or for that matter the recognised union refuses to represent him ? Is he compelled to take services of a notified office bearer only and not of a fellow workman ? It would have to follow that the rights of a delinquent workman would then be restricted only to the members of the office bearers of the union of which he is a member or to a recognised union and to none else. This conclusion will have to be accepted if the contention of the employer is accepted.

Under Section 21 it is pointed out that no employee by himself has a right to appear or act in the proceedings relating to unfair labour practices specified in items 2 and 6 of Schedule IV except through a recognised Union. Items 2 and 6 of Schedule IV reads as under:-

"2. To abolish the work of a regular nature being done by employees, and to give such work to contractors as a measure of breaking a strike.

4. To insist upon individual employees, who were on legal strike, to sign a good conduct-bond, as a precondition to allowing them to resume work."

In other words it is clear that under Section 21 individual rights of workmen have been taken away and rights have been conferred upon recognised union in respect of Item Nos.2 and 6 of Schedule IV only and the same is conferred on the representative of the employees entitled to appear under Section 30 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. In terms of Section 22 members of an unrecognised Union have the right to discuss with the employer or any person matter relating to his discharge, removal, retrenchment, termination of services and suspension and also to appear on behalf of his / its members in the undertaking in any domestic or departmental enquiry held by the employer. Thus even members of an unrecognised union have the right to represent the members of an unrecognised union.

10. Section 20 appears under the Chapter of obligation and rights of recognised union, other union and certain employees. Sections 20 and 21 of the Chapter deal with recognised unions and Section 22 deals with unrecognised unions. In other words these are the rights given to recognised union and unrecognised union.

Reading of Section 20(1) shows that the Act restricts the office-bearers, in terms of the rules framed to represent the union or member or any employee amongst others in any domestic enquiry. Section 20(2) sets out that where there is a recognised union in terms of Section 20(2)(b), an employee is precluded to appear, act or allowed to be represented in proceedings under the Central Act except in proceedings which pertains to his termination in any manner or suspension. It is, therefore clear that there should be proceedings initiated under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Domestic enquiry is not the subject matter of any proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, except in a reference challenging the order of dismissal/termination or other punishments. Therefore what has to be examined is whether Section 20(1)(d) is capable of being read as to restrict the right of representation provided in terms of model standing order or certified standing order under the provisions of this Standing Orders Act.

11. A perusal of the provisions of Sections 59 of the MRTU & PULP Act shows that this is the only section which restricts the applicability of other laws. Under Section 59 if any proceedings are instituted under the MRTU & PULP Act then no proceedings can be entertained under the Central Act or the Bombay Act i.e. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. Section 59 has been considered as also the Scheme of the MRTU & PULP Act. In the case of Shramik Utkarsh Sabha Vs. Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. and others, (reported in 1995 Lab.I.C. 1591). The Apex Court was considering the right of a representative union to represent the employees in a complaint made into unfair labour practices under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. On a consideration of the provisions, the Apex Court noted that MRTU & PULP Act was enacted to provide for the recognition of trade unions, for facilitating collective bargaining for certain undertakings, to state their rights and obligations, to confer certain powers on unrecognised unions and it defines and provides for the prevention of unfair labour practices, etc. The Apex Court noted that MRTU &PULP Act has taken note of the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and after that observed that there is commonality in their object and their provisions and they operate in tandem and complement each other. In Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. Ashok Vishnu Kate & others (reported in 1995 II CLR 823) the Apex Court observed that the Maharashtra Act is brought on the statute with the above purpose of regulating the activities of certain unions and for preventing certain unfair labour practices. The Apex Court thereafer observed that the Act sought to supplement and cover the field for which the Industries concerned and governed by the Industrial Disputes Act and Bombay Industrial Relations Act did not get any coverage. In other words, the Apex Court held that the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act and the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and Bombay Industrial Relations Act supplement each other. This then is the scheme and purpose of MRTU & PULP Act.

12. With this background can it now be said that the provisions of Section 20 read with the rules quoted above, a legal advisor will have no right to represent the workman. In the first instance what happens if the office bearers are themselves legal practitioners or for that matter persons legally trained. The constitution of Unions normally provides for ordinary Members and Honorary Members. In the present case it is so provided. An ordinary member is a person who is employed with the company. Honorary Members are those who are not eligible to become ordinary member. Their number is restricted to four. There is no bar on Honorary. Members becoming Office bearers of the Union. The office bearers are the President, two Vice Presidents, Joint Secretary, three General Secretaries, one Treasurer, three Joint Treasurers and a legal advisor. In other words four of such office bearers can be outsiders, in other words non-employees. Such non-employees can be any person including practicing lawyers. Therefore in terms of rule 18 of the MRTU & PULP Rules if the President, Vide President, the General Secretary, the Secretary, the Joint Secretary, the Assistant Secretary and the treasurer are legal practitioner obviously, the bar would not apply to them. As a legal representative is not mentioned, at the highest on the submission of the Counsel for the Petitioner such a legal representative will have no right of representation.

13. The question then is, does the Act take away the right conferred on a workmen by the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act and Model Standing Orders framed therein or Certified Standing Orders which gives them the right of being represented by the Union or for that matters by an individual employee. In case the certified standing orders do not provide for representation by a union the question will not arise and the ratio of Crescent Dyes (Supra) will apply. What happens if the Certified Standing Orders so provide ? In the case of U.P. Electricity Board (supra) a question arose before the Apex Court as to whether regulation made under the Electricity Board under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act shall have effect notwithstanding the fact that it is a matter which could be the subject matter of Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act. While answering the Apex Court noted as under:-

"The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act deals with a specific subject, namely the Conditions of Service enumerated in the Schedule, of workmen in Industrial establishments. It is impossible to conceive that Parliament sought to abrogate the provisions of this Act embodying as they do hard-won and precious rights of workmen and prescribing as they do an elaborated procedure, including a quasi-judicial determination, by a general, incidental provision like Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act. It is obvious that Parliament did not have before it the Standing Orders Act when it passed the Electricity (Supply) Act and Parliament never meant that the Standing Orders Act should stand pro tanto repealed by Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act. Therefore, the provisions of the Standing Orders Act must prevail over Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act in regard to matters to which the Standing Orders Act applies."

Therefore, it is clear that Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act stands by itself in so far as matters pertaining to conditions of service enumerated in the schedule, in an industrial establishment. The MRTU & PULP Act on the other hand is an act to prevent unfair labour practices on the part of employer and employee. The MRTU & PULP Act also gives recognition to what is known as recognised union and for that purpose confers certain rights on a recognised union which rights cannot be exercised by an unrecognised union. However, both recognised and unrecognised union can exercise their rights in respect of those matters which are not made exclusive to the recognised union. If this be the case then in that instant the rights of representation which a workman is entitled to under the provisions of the Standing Orders Act cannot be taken away. Standing Orders is a contract of service having statutory flavor. Breach of them would by itself amount to an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. In these circumstances, the right conferred on the delinquent employee under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act and the Model Standing Orders framed thereunder and the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act will have to be read in tandem. So read all that can be said is that in respect of the rights which are conferred on the recognised union an employee cannot ventilate his grievance in respect of the right on his own and such a right can only be ventilated by the recognised union. In so far as the domestic enquiry is concerned the expression used is "such officers as may be authorised" where the workman has sought to be represented by recognised union. So read it must mean that for the purpose of Section 21 and Section 23 and partly in terms of Section 20 it is those office-bearers alone who can represent the recognised union. In so far as clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 20 the expression to appear on behalf of any employee or employees in any domestic or departmental enquiry held by the employer must be read to mean in a case where an employee wants to be represented by a recognised union then in such an event by the Office bearers whose names are spelt out under Rule 18. Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 20 does not take away right of the workman to be represented by a fellow employee. If this be so read, it also does not take away right to be represented by an office-bearer other than those notified under Rule 18. At the highest it can be said that the rule is permissive and not exclusive. It can supplant the standing orders, it cannot supplement them.

14. The Standing Orders Act is an Act to define with precision certain conditions of employment. These conditions of employment are what are known as certified standing orders. In the absence of certified standing orders, as we have seen, it is the model standing orders which apply to the establishment. In other words, regarding the conditions of service the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 is a special legislation. The provisions of MRTU & PULP Act do not exclude the provisions of the Standing Orders Act, in respect of the conditions of service covered by the model standing orders or certified standing orders, they being statutory conditions of service they will have overriding effect until amended as per law. Under the provisions of MRTU & PULP Act by rules framed, the Government has been empowered to notify such office bearer who can represent a workman. Ex facie if not read harmoniously it would mean that the standing orders framed under the State or the Central Rules would stand modified. This cannot be so construed. The Central Rules will not stand modified as the MRTU & PULP Act is a State Act. What would stand modified at the highest if the argument is accepted would be the State Rules. In other words where the Appropriate government is the State Government, the position would be if the two Acts are not read harmoniously then only those office bearers as prescribed in Rule 18 of MRTU & PULP Act can represent the workman where the appropriate Government is the State Government but in so far as the establishment where the Central Government is an Appropriate Government any office bearer can represent the workman at an enquiry. This is not what either the Industrial Standing Orders Act or Rules framed there under and/or the MRTU & PULP Act and the Rules framed there under contemplate. As pointed out already the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act confer certain rights on a recognised union. It is in respect of these rights that the representation by an union can be so read. In matters where it is not the exclusive authority to represent the workman the provisions of the standing orders Act, rules framed thereunder or certified standing orders must prevail. If so read together the two Acts can be read harmoniously. Where the legislature has conferred certain rights on a workman and has not excluded the provisions of one Act from the other the legislative's intent must be given effect to. In the instant case, it can be given effect to if they are read harmoniously. Rule 18 which restricts only certain categories of office bearers to represent a worker at a domestic inquiry can be read to mean to be applicable only in those cases or instances where union has been conferred an exclusive right of representation. In other cases where individual rights are conferred the provisions of the standing orders, the rules framed there under or the certified standing orders framed must prevail. An act of misconduct by very nature is an individual dispute. It does not become a collective dispute unless so raised. The sole right in such matters is not vested in a recognised union or in an unrecognised union. Therefore, in so far as the individual disputes are concerned, the provisions of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, the rules framed thereunder and the standing orders Act will prevail over rule 18 of the rules framed under the MRTU & PULP Act. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the office bearer of a Union has no right of representing the delinquent employee in a domestic enquiry merely because he happens to be a lawyer.

15. In the instant case as per the Certified Standing Orders in force as on 8th June, 1989, the Standing Order providing right of representation at the domestic enquiry reads as under:-

"Section 33 (4):

An employee against whom an inquiry has to be held shall be given a charge-sheet clearly setting forth the circumstances appearing against him and requiring explanation. He shall be given an opportunity to answer the charge and permitted to be defended by his representative under Section 30 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. Except for reasons to be recorded in writing by the officer holding the Inquiry, the employee shall be permitted to produce witnesses in his defence and cross-examine any witnesses on whose evidence the charge rests. A concise summary of the evidence led on either side and the employee's plea shall be recorded."

It is thus clear that the recognised union can represent the delinquent workman.

There is thus no difficulty in holding that any office-bearer can represent the Union. There is thus no infirmity in orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court.

16. In the circumstances, rule discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.

Petition dismissed