A.S. Krishnamurthy And Ors. vs Central India Spinning, Weaving And ... on 6 November, 2006
In Ananta Shripati Bhorade v. Meher (M.R.) and others, reported at 1960 II LLJ 170 learned Single Judge of this Court has,while dealing with B.I.R. Act, taken the view that howsoever liberally interpreted, said saving or exception cannot be read to mean that even when there is a representative union appearing as representative of the employees, the employees themselves can go before the Tribunal and say that they are entitled to appear in the proceeding on their own behalf. It is also observed that Section 27A and 30 must be read together and as a general rule, it is not open to individual employees to appear or act in any proceeding, but they must do so to the representative of the employees. The language of Section 27A is in terms express, explicit and mandatory and if the case falls to be determined under Section 27A read with Section 30,there is no scope for submission that Petitioners were entitled to appear & act before the Industrial Court. These observations are also relevant in present background.