The matter is argued at full length by Party-in-Person Mr.C.K.Bhayani (Mr.Chunilal Kanjibhai Bhayani). The matter was argued for almost three sessions of this Court. The matter started yesterday, i.e. 19.07.2011 after mentioning work was over, i.e. from 11.00 am to 01.45 pm and in the second session again from 02.30 pm to 05.00 pm. Party-in-Person wanted the matter to be adjourned so that he is able to argue the matter on some other day. The request was declined by this Court because the matter was over-night part-heard.
Today, i.e. 20.07.2011, the matter is argued right from 11.00 am, barring few mentioning and few formal orders. The matter is argued right up to 01.15 pm.
2. These facts are set out because the Court has noticed a typical conduct of this Party-in-Person that after every order passed by this Court, he files an affidavit and explains every word, either of the order or what transpired in the Court. That is how, the petition, which runs only in 8 pages, has collected volume of 324 pages.
2.1 This Court is of the considered opinion that it is high time when the Hon'ble the Apex Court lays down certain guidelines for regulating conduct of Party-in-Person, who with their so called knowledge, more particularly of English language, waste time time of the Court. In this case also, the matter, which could have been over including dictation of judgment /order within not more that 20 to 25 minutes, the aforesaid time is taken, only with a view to see that Party-in-Person does not go with an impression that only because he is appearing as Party-in-Person, he is not given sufficient audience by the Court.
2.2 It is recorded with pain that indulgence shown by this Court is misused by Party-in-Person and he has tried to narrate all his personal grievances against the company-respondent herein. More than once he referred to an incident of his wife and son being beaten by security staff, which has nothing to do with the subject matter of the petition. He has also tried to refer to many instances to bring home the fact that he is victimized by the company. This Court is of the opinion that these instances have nothing to do with the subject matter of this petition.
3. The present petition is filed challenging an order passed below application Exh.68 in Reference (IT) No.125 of 2004. Though the Reference is having number of 2004, the matter is more than a decade old. The order is passed on 18.04.2009 and the present petition is filed on 13.07.2009. Since then, this matter is pending before this Court.
3.1 Though technically, no Rule is issued by this Court, meaning thereby the matter is not admitted by this Court, Party-in-Person insisted that the matter is required to be finally heard because this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.R.Brahmbhatt) by order dated 16.09.2009 issued notice for final disposal returnable on 28.10.2009.
3.2 Again, as stated hereinabove, with a view to see that Party-in-Person is not subjected to any procedural technicality, the matter is heard at full length, only with a view to see that the Party-in-Person does not entertain a grievance, but the Court is sure that Party-in-Person will still have grievance because on number of occasions, the Court had to curtailed his arguments as the same were either repetitions or irrelevant. The Court feels it to be its duty to put it on record that, 'when ever Party-in-Person travelled beyond the scope of the petition, he was stopped and was brought back to the subject matter of the petition'.
4. The Court is of the opinion that, 'this is a frivolous petition and it is filed only with a view to see that sufficient pressure is brought on the company so that personal score can be settled'. This is required to be observed because Party-in-Person himself stated that he was suspended once and remained under suspension for about 23 months and thereafter, he was reinstated, after which he put in about 2 years' service, before he reached the age of superannuation. The Party-in-Person submitted that about Rs.24 to Rs.26 lacs are not paid by the company.
4.1 Coming to the controversy in the petition, it is really shocking that normally the employer /management is blamed and held responsible for practicing delayed tactics. But, case on hand is the one wherein Party-in-Person, claiming himself to be the General Secretary of Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Company Ltd. Officers' Association, is wholly and solely responsible for the delay, not only before the Industrial Tribunal, but also before this Court. The matter is pending before this Court for last 2 years. The matter has travelled to various Courts and every time, the order passed by the Court is commented upon by Party-in-Person by filing a full length affidavit. The Court, with a view to see that the order is not made unnecessarily lengthy, does not refer to every single order and the affidavit filed commenting thereon. For illustrating, the last order passed by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice H.K.Rathod) is commented upon by filing an affidavit, which is at page Nos.312 to 316 and the annexures from page Nos.317 to 324. On perusal of the order, it is learnt as to what panicky was created in the Court by Party-in-Person. Every single word uttered by the Court or other side is contested /controverted. Order dated 14.06.2011 reads as under:-
".....
In this matter, till today, 'Rule' is not issued by this Court. However, party in person has brought to notice of this Court that this Court has passed an order on 16.09.2009 while issuing 'Notice' for final disposal and made it returnable on 28.10.2009. This Court has considered aforesaid order passed by this Court on 16.09.2009. However, before deciding matter finally, 'Rule' is required to be issued by this Court, but, till date, 'Rule' is not issued by this Court. It is very difficult to disposal of this matter finally at 'Notice' stage.
Today, party in person Mr. C.K. Bhayani, General Secretary of petitioner Association has placed on record additional affidavit of petitioner. Learned advocate Mr.Gandhi has received it today from party in person. Therefore, learned advocate Mr.Gandhi requests for some time to file reply to such additional affidavit filed by Mr. C.K. Bhayani today. However, he (learned Advocate Mr.Keyur Gandhi) submitted that during pendency of this petition, Reference proceeding is going on before Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara being Reference No.125 of 2004. Therefore, learned advocate Mr. Gandhi submitted that some suitable directions may be issued to Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara, not to proceed further pending Reference No.125 of 2004 till final disposal of present petition.
The aforesaid submission made by learned advocate Mr. Gandhi is strongly objected by party in person and party in person submitted that he wants to argue this matter against aforesaid submission made by learned advocate Mr. Gandhi.
For that, further hearing is necessary. However, it is open for respondent to file such application before Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara with a request to adjourn Reference proceedings pointing out reason of pendency of present petition before this Court.
It is also open for petitioner to object such request if it will be made by respondent before Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara.
It is directed to Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara to consider such application which will be made by respondent company and then to pass appropriate orders after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties while keeping in mind fact that present petition is pending before this Court.
It is also made it clear by this Court that this petition is only on 'Notice' stage and no interim relief has been granted by this Court in favour of present petitioner.
Considering request made by learned advocate Mr. Gandhi to file reply against additional affidavit filed by party in person today, matter is adjourned to 30.06.2011.
(emphasis supplied) 4.2 The panicky created by Party-in-Person is reflected from the following part of the order:-
"Aforesaid order is passed in presence of party in person today by this Court. Inspite of aforesaid order passed by this Court, party in person is making unnecessary grievances and is not curtailing his argument which is not at all relevant for purpose of filing reply by respondent against additional affidavit which has been placed on record by petitioner today before this Court. The party in person is taking much liberty in making his submissions and even not prepared to stop his argument so this Court can pass this order peacefully and making unnecessary repeated submissions, therefore, it is very difficult for this Court to deal with such matter when party in person is personally appearing and taking liberty to make unnecessary allegations with his submissions which adversely affects to decorum and dignity of this Court. It creates an embarrassing situation for Court to deal with such matter wherein party in person appears. In such circumstances, according to my opinion, it is now not proper to deal with this matter further, therefore, ' NOT BEFORE THIS COURT'.
After passing aforesaid order by this Court, party in person has shown order which has been passed by Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara dated 07.06.2011 upon Ex.115 application preferred by respondent company, wherein Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara has rejected application Ex.115. Therefore, party in person submitted that as this order dated 07.06.2011 has already been passed by Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara in Reference No.125 of 2004, now, no further order is required to be passed.
However, I have considered submissions made by party in person. Once, Industrial Tribunal has rejected application Ex.115 submitted by respondent company for adjournment, then also, respondent company is entitled to make fresh application which can be examined and decided by Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara, therefore, according to my opinion, this Court has considered order dated 07.06.2011 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara, as desired by party in person.
(emphasis supplied)
5. Party-in-Person opened the matter by filing an affidavit, which is titled as, 'AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONER IN CONNECTION TO THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE CURT DATED 14/6/2011'. Party-in-Person read the entire affidavit with interpositions of the material referred to in the affidavit and making further interpositions with reference to other matter also. The Party-in-Person tried to persuade this Court that the learned Single Judge, who passed order dated 14.06.2011, had no authority to pass the order, whereby the Industrial Tribunal was directed to consider application which may be filed by the respondent company. This Court is of the opinion that if at all the Party-in-Person was aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the remedy was to file appropriate proceedings rather than contending before this Court as if this Court is hearing an appeal against that order. During the course of arguments, the Party-in-Person submitted that this Court must make an observation to the effect that, 'this direction is not warranted', more particularly when the company has not placed on record order dated 07.06.2011. The Court was required to tell Party-in-Person that he must come out of the mis-conception about scope of the present petition. It was also conveyed to Party-in-Person that this Court has to consider the petition against the order which is under challenge in accordance with law.
5.1 It will be appropriate to mention here that even before starting submissions, soon after filing the aforesaid affidavit (page Nos.312 to 318 + 317 to 324), the Party-in-Person insisted that, 'other side be asked to give a declaration that the other side does not want to file any reply to this affidavit'. Party-in-Person submitted that this declaration is very much necessary because otherwise, after he argues the matter for quite some time, other side may stand up and ask for time to file reply to the affidavit. This behaviour of Party-in-Person was condoned and no action was taken because as stated hereinabove, the Court granted indulgence to Party-in-Person. But it will not be inappropriate to mention here that Party-in-Person, more particularly the persons who are little fluent in English, treat this indulgence as weakness of the Court and cause harassment to the Court which is reflected from order dated 14.06.2011, passed by another learned Single Judge of this Court. It is high time when appropriate guidelines regulating the behaviour of Party-in-Person in the Court are prescribed by the Hon'ble the Apex Court so that no nuisance is created in the Court.
5.2 Coming to the merits of the matter, the order passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Tribunal below application Exh.68, whereby the learned Member of the Industrial Tribunal directed the present petitioner to produce certain documents, is challenged. The learned Member of the Industrial Tribunal directed the production so as to see that required assistance for adjudicating the dispute involved in the Reference is rendered. This Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.R.Brahmbhatt) passed an order on 10.08.2009, which is significant. The same reads as under:-
"1. Shri C.K.Bhayani, party-in-person, is required to produce on record, the authority letter authorizing him to challenge the order dated 18.4.2009 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara by way of filing petition in the High Court, the authorization letter authorizing him to proceed further with pending reference being Reference (I.T.) No.125 of 2004,the authority to continue him to go ahead with the reference after Shri Bhayani, party-in-person, has retired from the service, the constitution of the GNFC Officers Association indicating that the outsider can hold the office and the declaration of Shri Bhayani's election as Secretary to the Union."
2. Shri Bhayani seeks time to produce the aforesaid documents on record. Hence, at his request, the matter is kept on 16th September, 2009.
(emphasis supplied) 5.3 Even with strenuous effort, one cannot find fault with the order by which the aforesaid documents are ordered to be produced. But for the reasons best known to the petitioner-Party-in-Person, he is not ready to produce these documents. He has taken all possible contentions for non-production of these documents, which makes the Court more suspicious about the authority /locus standie of the petitioner-Party-in-Person, not only in this petition, but also in the Reference proceedings.
5.4 On 16.09.2009, Party-in-Person filed an affidavit along with documents in respect of authorization, which was taken on record and the Court issued notice for final disposal returnable on 28.10.2009. It is this order of which a lot of hue and cry is made by Party-in-Person. The Party-in-Person insisted that irrespective of the procedural lacuna of not issuing 'Rule' in the matter, the matter must be heard finally only. The Party-in-Person submitted that the Court cannot refer to the fact that, 'till today, Rule is not issued'. It is this observation made by another learned Single Judge (Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice H.K.Rathod) by which the Party-in-Person got offended, which is reflected in order date 14.06.2011.
5.5 It appears that the documents which were produced along with the affidavit, which is referred to in order dated 16.09.2009, were not as required and that is why, this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr.K.S.Jhaveri) passed order on 26.07.2010, which reads as under:-
"The order dated 10 th August 2009 passed by this Court in the present petition is very clear. The petitioner has not complied with the said order till date . Therefore, as a last chance, the petitioner is directed to comply with the said order within a period of two weeks from today, failing which this Court will pass appropriate orders on the next date of hearing.
The matter is adjourned to 09th August 2010."
(emphasis supplied 5.6 Despite this order Party-in-Person was not ready to open his cards. He was not ready to produce the required documents before the Industrial Tribunal. Not only that, even before this Court, he is not ready to produce these documents. As has transpired during the course of arguments, he is making it a prestige issue and is taking all untenable contentions in law against the order passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Tribunal dated 18.04.2009. This Court is unable to appreciate and understand the reason /hesitation on the part of Party-in-Person. The only reason which could be inferred is either there is something fishy or Party-in-Person is making it a big prestige issue in producing the documents as directed by the Industrial Tribunal and the documents which are directed to be produced by this Court.
5.7 On 15.12.2010, the matter came up before another learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.A.Puj). The Court passed order as under:-
"1. Affidavit-in rejoinder as well as additional affidavit are filed by the petitioner. The same are taken on record. The sealed cover which is sought to be produced on record, is not taken on record as the copy of the documents put in the said sealed cover are not served on the other side, hence it is returned back to the petitioner.
2. This Court vide order dated 10th August, 2009, directed the petitioner to produce certain documents one of which is the declaration of Mr. C.K. Bhayani's election as Secretary to the Union.
While complying with this direction Mr. Bhayani has invited the Court's attention to the resolution of working committee passed on 3rd January, 2010, a copy of which is produced at page 207 of this petition. To examine the correctness and veracity of this document, Mr. Bhayani is directed to produce the original minutes book, wherein the said resolution is referred to and reproduce and also state as to who are the members present while the said resolution is passed. All these details are furnished on the record of this petition on the next date of hearing. S.O. to 29th December, 2010."
(emphasis supplied) 5.8 It is really painful that the order passed even by this Court are not taken seriously and the same are not complied with. Besides, the Party-in-Person has an audacity to state before this Court that, 'these documents are not required to be produced because, (1) the company has no right /entitlement for these documents and (2) the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to direct Party-in-Person to produce these documents and by doing so, the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction. The Party-in-Person seems to have his own understanding of law. He is not ready to accept /understand anything further because he is of the opinion that whatever he has understood is final. He submitted that the subject matter of Reference (IT) No.125 of 2004 is under the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, the documents which are sought for can be asked to be produced only when the matter arises under the Trade Unions Act. The Court is unable to make Party-in-Person understand a simple thing that even without any Reference being filed under the Trade Unions Act, the Tribunal and by all means this Court can always ask for any documents to satisfy its conscience before hearing of the matter. The Party-in-Person has spent all his energy and time in a mis-direction. Due to faulty understanding of law, an unreasonable stand is taken by Party-in-Person of not producing the documents which are asked for.
5.9 At this juncture, it will be necessary to refer to a document produced along with affidavit of the petitioner affirmed on 16.09.2009. The document is marked as Annexure-2/A (page No.96). The copy which is furnished seems to be a xerox copy. The document is titled as, 'RESOLUTION OF WORKING COMMITTEE - ON 15/1/2009'. It is signed by General Secretary and President. The signatures are illegible, but it is on record that Party-in-Person himself is the General Secretary, as he claims and one Mr.BUM Rao is the Vice President. The resolution reads as under:-
"It is decided /resolved that:
Shri BUM Rao, VP is nominated as President of the Association and Shri G K Bhatti is nominated as Vice President of the Association - with effect from 15/1/09.
All other committee members would continue to the same posts /positions for the year 2009.
Shri C K Bhayani, General Secretary would continue to represent for and on behalf of the Association in all matters - including legal matters /cases and any other matters of the Association, and in addition Shri G K Bhatti, Vice President is authorized to represent for and on behalf of the Association in all matters - including legal matters /cases and any other matters of the Association.
Further, Shri BUM Rao, President, Shri G K Bhatti, Vice President and Shri C K Bhayani, General Secretary are jointly and /or individually authorized to nominate /appoint any other members /honorary members /persons /lawyers for representation for and on behalf of the Association in all matters - including legal matters /cases and any other matters of the Association."
5.10 It is in light of the contents of this resolution that this Court (Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.A.Puj) had to observe that, "..... To examine the correctness and veracity of this document, Mr. Bhayani is directed to produce the original minutes book, wherein the said resolution is referred to and reproduce and also state as to who are the members present while the said resolution is passed....".
This observation is made of course while referring hand written resolution of Working Committee passed on 03.01.2010, a copy of which is produced at page No.207 of the petition. It will be appropriate to look into the contents of page No.207. This page No.207 is Annexure-1 with, 'AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONER IN CONNECTION TO ORDER OF HONOURABLE HIGH COURT'. The resolution reads as under:-
"The Resolution of Working Committee (15.1.2009) is reviewed, adopted and approved. It is decided /resolved that:
All Committee members would continue on the same posts /positions for year 2010, and/or till the new Committee is formed /appointed appropriately.
Shri C.K.Bhayani, General Secretary and Shri G.K.Bhatti, V.P. would continue to represent for and on behalf of the Association in all matters-including legal matters/cases and any other matters of the Association.
Further, Shri BUM Rao, President, Shri G.K.Bhatti, Vice President and Shri C.K.Bhayani, G.S. are jointly and/or individually authorised in respect of any appointments /nominations for representations for and on behalf of the Association in all matters-including legal cases.
Working Committee reviewed the role and involvement of Shri C.K.Bhayani, Gen.Sec. in all affairs and activities - including the legal matters of the Association - right from beginning and that of Shri G.K.Bhatti, V.P. for quite some time ; and appreciated the contribution & work done by them and the progress /outcome achieved in the matters before judicial Authorities - including the Hon'ble High Court ; And further decided/resolved that:-
Shri C.K.Bhayani and Shri G.K.Bhatti would continue to represent for and on behalf of the Association in all legal matters /cases till its final conclusions - irrespective of their positions in Working Committee, or till specifically resolved /decided otherwise in this matter /regards."
(emphasis supplied) 5.11 Again this document is signed only by the General Secretary and President. General Secretary as mentioned hereinabove is Party-in-Person himself - Mr.C.K.Bhayani and President is Mr.BUM Rao.
5.12 While the matter was in progress, the Court inquired as to how come the resolution is signed by only two persons, viz. General Secretary and President. Party-in-Person made a bald statement that in our Association this is the practice, as if the Association is above law and whatever is stated by Party-in-Person is to be taken as gospel truth and no further question can be put to Party-in-Person. This attitude is required to be condemned because if this is not condemned, it will send wrong signals to similar other persons, who will start behaving in the same manner as is this Party-in-Person is behaving, which is significantly reflected in order passed by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice H.K.Rathod) dated 14.06.2011.
5.13 But for Party-in-Person appearing in the matter, the matter would have been dismissed with exemplary costs for non-compliance of directions given by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.R.Brahmbhatt) by order dated 10.08.2009 and (Coram:
Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.A.Puj) by order dated 15.12.2010. However, as stated hereinabove, with a view to see that Party-in-Person is not denied an opportunity, he was allowed to argue the matter. The Party-in-Person has consumed the aforesaid time of this Court. It will be appropriate here to put it on record that in these two days, i.e. 19.07.2011 and 20.07.2011, no other matter could substantially be heard only on account of the aforesaid behaviour of Party-in-Person. The Court is not expressing any grievance because due to indulgence granted by this Court, which, as mentioned hereinabove was with a purpose that, Party-in-Person does not go with an impression that he could not represent his case before the Court.
5.14 Even during the course of arguments, at no stage, Party-in-Person showed his willingness to comply with aforesaid two orders and the Court also did not insist for that. Instead, the Court directed itself to the merits of the matter even in absence of aforesaid documents.
6. As stated hereinabove, in the present petition, order passed below application Exh.68 dated 18.04.2009 is under challenge. The order is well considered order, running into 23 typed pages. Learned Member of the Industrial Tribunal has reproduced relevant portion (questions and answers of cross-examination of the present Party-in-Person) to bring home the conduct of Party-in-Person before the Tribunal. From perusal of the portion which is placed on record, it is clear that it is Party-in-Person who is out to see that the proceedings of Reference are derailed that too with a purpose to see that the Reference does not come to an end. To achieve that purpose, the present petition is kept hanging before this Court since 2009.
6.1 In reply to number of questions, adamance and headstrongness of Party-in-Person is reflected. On number of occasions, learned Member of the Industrial Tribunal had to intervene and ask the Party-in-Person to reply the question which otherwise Party-in-Person discarded by saying that, 'in my humble opinion, the question is irrelevant and malafide and is put only with a purpose of delaying the case that the question is not only misplaced ('asthane') at such a belated stage but is ridiculous and absurd'.
6.2 This Court is of the opinion that if at all Party-in-Person was interested in finalization of the pending Reference, such an attitude would not have been shown by Party-in-Person and such a stand would not have been taken by him. As mentioned hereinabove, Reference as well as present proceedings are single handedly persuaded by the Party-in-Person only with a view to see that he is able to settle his personal score with the company.
6.3 At one stage, the Party-in-Person used 'unparliamentary language' for the Advocate of the company and also for the officers, who are in charge of the affairs of the company. The Party-in-Person also brought in the Hon'ble the Chief Minister, referring him by name, but the Court restrained him from doing so and asked him to confine himself to the scope of the petition. Similarly, he also narrated incident of his wife and son being beaten and he being suspended, more than once. Again the Court had to restrain him from going outside the scope of the petition. With difficulty, Party-in-Person could be restrained from making reference to the facts which are not warranted for the adjudication of the question involved in the petition. He made reference to almost entire record, e.g. he started with page No.258-para 4(b) of the 'AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONER IN CONNECTION TO THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 18-02-2011'. For ready reference, para-4(b) is reproduced because it very appropriately depicts his mental frame and also his attitude:-
"4. (b) The petitioner has also submitted that there are also evidences on records that suggest /indicate unfairness, ill-intentions and conspiracy with the concerned authorities on part of the Respondent Company - Company Authorities /Representatives / Advocates.
In other words, it may respectfully be stated that the said evidences /records suggest that the Respondent Company has influenced the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal and the Presiding Officer has acted with bias against the petitioner Union, and the impugned order is a "produce of conspiracy /understanding", as it appears from the impugned order itself and other documents /records. It is submitted that the petitioner would cite or produce the evidence /record, and further clarify and argue at the time of hearing of the petition. It is submitted that when the Court appears " biased", its proceedings should be set aside. Further, in view of the above, the matter requires to be dealt with appropriately and strongly by this Hon'ble Court."
(emphasis supplied) 6.4 It appears that the only way known to the Party-in-Person of showing respect is mentioning the word, 'respectfully'. The Court has not felt any respect either for law or for authorities or any Judicial Officer, possessed by Party-in-Person.
6.5 The petitioner referred to page Nos.313, 318, 319, again 313, with he referred to page Nos.256, 209, 257, again come back to page No.313, then page Nos.320, 321, 324, 316, 314, 313, 314, 315, 316, 321, 323 and 324. In this process of referring the pages, the Court had to remind Party-in-Person that the present petition is filed challenging order dated 18.04.2009 so it will be in fitness of things if Party-in-Person confines himself to the contents of that order, which is at page No.9-Annexure-A to this petition.
6.6 In fact, Party-in-Person was out to take the Court for ride which is clear from his conduct. Annexure-A-page Nos.9 to 31 is typed copy of the order under challenge. Instead or reading that typed copy, Party-in-Person insisted on reading the hand-written copy, which is produced at page Nos.51 to 91. The excuse for doing so was that he is not comfortable with the typed copy. Of course, while reading the hand-written copy, Party-in-Person had to stop very frequently on the ground that the hand-writing is not legible. The Court is not able to decode the behaviour of Party-in-Person in doing so. When there is a typed copy already placed on record, if at all Party-in-Person was of the opinion that there are few typographical mistakes, he could have removed them during these two years. Instead of that, he insisted that he should be allowed to read hand-written copy and not the typed one. Be that as it may, with a view to see that Party-in-Person does not get an excuse to get the matter shunted off, the Court read the order along with Party-in-Person.
7. On Court reminding Party-in-Person as to on what ground/s, impugned order is challenged. Party-in-Person spell out two grounds, (1) the company has no right /entitlement to ask for the documents, mentioned in application Exh.68 and (2) the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the order, asking Party-in-Person to supply /produce on record the documents mentioned in the order impugned.
7.1 While elaborating these two grounds, Party-in-Person submitted that if anybody can ask for the documents which are referred to in application Exh.68, it is the authority under the Trade Unions Act and nobody else, more particularly the company can never ask for these documents.
7.2 While elaborating ground No.2, Party-in-Person submitted that the Tribunal was hearing a Reference under the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, these documents cannot be asked for because they pertained to the Trade Unions Act. May be this is his understanding, but the question remains that when the company has come forward with a specific case that the present Party-in- Person, who was serving as an officer with the company, has retired on 28.02.2009, whether can be continue as an office bearer of the Association, which is the Association of GNFC Officers' Association. How a Reference on behalf of the workman at the hands of the Officers' Association is maintainable is a separate question, which the Court is not going into because it is not within the scope of this petition.
(emphasis supplied) 7.3 Application Exh.68 was filed by the Company on 03.03.2009, without loosing any time for raising question about the authorization /locus standie of the petitioner-Party-in-Person herein. Party-in-Person very vehemently submitted that earlier, similar applications were filed and they were rejected, but then he lost sight of the fact that it was after his retirement on 28.02.2009, application Exh.68 was filed on 03.03.2009. That application was under 'changed circumstances' and therefore, it was very much right on the part of the learned Member of the Industrial Tribunal to consider the application in light of the changed circumstances and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. If the very authorization of the person representing a union is under challenge, it was the bounden duty of that representative (present Party-in-Person - officer bearer) to satisfy the Tribunal that he still continues to hold the authorization for representing the union in the pending Reference. Instead of that, Party-in-Person got offended and the result is that the Reference has remained handing since then (18.04.2009 is the date of order and the matter is pending before this Court and no substantial, effective hearing has taken place).
7.4 This Court is of the considered opinion that answers given by the present Party-in-Person during his cross-examination on the point of his 'pay' also reflect his attitude and conduct.
It was asked that:-
In your cross-examination, you have stated that you are a workman of GNFC and still you are a member of GNFC Officers' Association and you are General Secretary, how is it?'.
Answer:-
I am a lawful member of Officers' Association and also General Secretary.
Question:-
Are you a member of GNFC Employees' Union?.
Answer:-
It is true that I am not a member.
Question:-
Why are you not member in GNFC Employees' Union?'.
Answer:-
I have opted to be a member of GNFC Officers' Association.
Question:-
GNFC Officer's Association are in Grade GREO-5 and workers are having pay-in Grade grade-5. You are in which grade?.
Answer:-
By asking such grade, time of the Hon'ble Court is wasted.
[The Court explained to the petitioner - Party-in-Person that looking to the importance of this question with regard to facts of the case, this question is necessary, so orally asked to reply] Answer:-
With objection I state that I got GREO-5, but such grade or post has nothing to do with the workman that is already stated in Exh.27.
Question:-
Shri Bhayani, your pay in March 2008 was Rs.54,968.30 ps. Is it true?.
Answer:-
I do not remember at present.
Question:-
In June 2008, your pay was Rs.67,846.76 ps. Is it true?.
Answer:-
I do not remember any such figures.
Question:-
Do you remember your last month's salary?.
Answer:-
I do not remember exactly.
Question:-
Are you ready to produce pay slip of the last month given by the company?.
Answer:-
In my opinion, this question is irrelevant, inappropriate and these documents are not produced.
[The Court again gave oral instructions to the petitioner - Party-in-Person that, 'Looking to the importance of the question, this question is taken on record and you are asked to reply the same] Answer:-
If I will be able to find out, I will produce.
Question:-
Has company given you any writing that being a General Secretary, you are duty free?.
Answer:-
Company has not given any me any such writing, but to the General Secretary of other union, such writing is given and I have stated so.
Question:-
Whether all the members of GNFC Officers' Association have given any authority letter to the General Secretary to conduct this case before the Tribunal and if it is so, will you produce the same before the Court?'.
Answer:-
Qua this Reference two conciliation proceedings were held and at that time, whatever record was felt necessary, was produced. Thereafter, according to the order of the Hon'ble High Court, in new conciliation proceeding, the Government has made Reference. Therefore, it is my clear belief that only with a view to prolong this case, such questions are asked after so many years, which are mis-placed ('asthane'), improper and in this regard, I have made my presentation in Exhs.14, 18, 24, 27. Despite that, deliberately, with malafide intention, only with a view to waste time of the Court and mine and with a view to prolong the case, such practice is adopted that is my humble opinion. Besides, after the order of the Hon'ble High Court of 2004, the company had filed LPA before the Division Bench which the High Court dismissed, it is on record at Exh.27.
[The Court had to again intervene and explain to the petitioner - Party-in-Person to reply the question by explaining the same to the party].
To which, Party-in-Person replied that:-
After so many years, to ask for such question when I have been representing right from conciliation proceedings till today, this question is not only misplaced but is ridiculous and absurd.
That is my humble opinion'.
7.5 There is a long list of such questions and answers which are not reproduced, but the aforesaid questions and answers are sufficient to exhibit the attitude and behaviour of Party-in-Person.
7.6 While reading order under challenge, one of the grievances of the Party-in-Person was that the learned Member of the Industrial Tribunal has not incorporated his entire deposition and cross-examination. This Court is of the opinion that the learned Judge has not committed any error in not incorporating the entire deposition and cross-examination. The learned Judge has reproduced the questions and answers, which the learned Judge has felt necessary to put it on record that the stand taken by Party-in-Person was absolutely unreasonable and this Court is of the opinion that the learned Judge is right in coming to that conclusion.
7.7 Party-in-Person relied upon the following decisions:-
In the matter between Mettur Chemical and Industrial Corporation Ltd. and Their Workers, reported in 1955 (1) LLJ 27.
In the matter of Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha & Ors., reported in (1980) 2 SCC 593.
In the matter of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai & Ors., reported in AIR 2003 SC 3044.
In the matter of Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S.Radhakrishnan & Ors., reported in AIR 1964 SC 477.
In the matter of Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 192.
In the matter of Divisional Railway Manager & Ors. Vs. Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmchari Parishad, Sabarmati, reported in 2002 (94) FLR 498.
In the matter between Pappu Ram and Labour Court, Jodhpur & Ors., reported in 2006 (3) LLN 387.
7.8 Besides, Party-in-Person also relied upon a Commentary below Section-1 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, wherein decision in the matter of Mahadeo Prasad Saxena Vs. Mahesh Gauri Sugar Mills, reported in 1955 LAC 753 is referred to and quoted by saying that, "President or Secretary of the Union are legally competent to represent workmen and argue their case for the adjudication. They can also take such action which in their opinion is in the best interest of workmen, provided their action was not guided by bad faith".
7.9 The aforesaid decisions are cited in three parts. The first two decisions are cited on the point that the documents which are ordered to be produced by the Industrial Tribunal could not have been ordered, in light of the fact that Section 11(3)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act and Rule 21 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1947 are to be read and interpreted in light of Section 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure and O-11, R-15 and 18(1) and (2).
7.10 This Court is of the opinion that the first two decisions have no application to the facts of the present case. As discussed hereinabove, if a question is raised about the authority of a person representing a union, the learned Member of the Industrial Tribunal can always ask for producing the convincing document so as to establish that authority to the satisfaction of the learned Member.
7.11 While citing the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in the matter of Mettur Chemical and Industrial Corporation Ltd. (supra), Party-in-Person invited attention of the Court to last part of the judgment and order, which reads as under:-
"The petition is allowed. The rule nisi is made absolute. The order of the industrial tribunal dated 8 July 1954 is set aside. The first respondent will pay the costs of the petitioner. Counsel's fee Rs.200."
7.12 Party-in-Person submitted that this is a matter of 1954-55 and at that time, price of gold was Rs.100 per 'Tola'.
So two 'Tolas' of gold can be purchased by Rs.200 and therefore, this Court should award the cost commensurating with today's market price of gold.
7.13 The Court is not surprised on such an argument coming from Party-in-Person, but of course, is at pains to record that Party-in-Person is not a Class-III or Class-IV employee, but is an officer, who had been drawing salary as mentioned by the learned Judge while reproducing his cross-examination that in the month of March 2008, he was drawing Rs.54,968.30 ps. and in June 2008, he was drawing Rs.67,846.76 ps. May be that there was pay revision in between. What is important is that the petitioner-Party-in-Person did not remember as to what salary die he receive in the last month. Such submission coming from an educated - officer rank Party-in-Person shows his attitude and extent of cooperation extended by him in the legal proceedings.
7.14 The decisions cited from Sr. Nos.3 to 5 are on the point of scope of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In the opinion of this Court, none of these decisions have any application to the facts of the present case. Taking into consideration the scope of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court repeatedly requested Party-in-Person to confine himself to the scope of the petition and not to travel beyond that.
7.14 The decisions cited at Sr. Nos.6 and 7 are on the point that once the dispute is referred to a forum (Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal, etc.), it is to be decided on merits and it cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution. Party-in-Person himself stated that, in the present case, Reference is neither dismissed for non-prosecution nor any such occasion has arisen so far. In view of this, none of the aforesaid decisions help the Party-in-Person.
8. In the present case, Party-in-Person has engaged this Court right from 11.00 am till 01.45 pm and 02.30 pm to 05.00 pm on 19.07.2011 and today, i.e. 20.07.2011, from 11.00 to 01.15 pm. Taking lenient view in the matter, the petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only). Notice is discharged.
The Court is of the opinion that the matter is required to be referred to the 'appropriate' authority for investigation. Hence, a copy of this judgment and order be given to learned AGP Mr.Nirag Pathak to forward the same to appropriate authority to cause necessary investigation, ' in the matter of existence of GNFC Officers' Association', its members, elections, if any and other activities of this Association'.
(Ravi R.Tripathi, J.) *Shitole Top