Statutory representation by a Representative Union bars parallel impleadment by an unrecognised workmen committee in compromise proceedings.

Under the Gujarat Industrial Relations Act, 1946, a duly recognised Representative Union is the statutory body entitled to represent workmen in industrial proceedings, and an unrecognised committee of workmen cannot claim a parallel right of appearance or impleadment. Allegations of loss of confidence, mala fides, or later changes affecting the union's status do not displace that statutory representation where the union had already appeared and consented to the scheme. A loose committee without clear legal status therefore lacked locus standi to be impleaded as party-respondent in the company petition.

---

---

Issues: Whether a committee of workmen, not being the Representative Union under the Gujarat Industrial Relations Act, 1946, could be impleaded as party-respondent in a company petition for sanction of a scheme of compromise, and whether alleged loss of confidence in the Representative Union or its later cancellation/restoration affected its authority to represent the workmen.

Analysis: Under Sections 13 and 14 of the Gujarat Industrial Relations Act, 1946, the statutory scheme recognises a Representative Union as the body entitled to represent employees in industrial proceedings. The Court held that the applicant had not shown any clear legal status as a registered or recognised body and was only a loose committee of workmen. The existing Representative Union had already consented to the scheme, and the later cancellation order was stayed conditionally; in any event, that later development could not undo a decision taken years earlier. Relying on the settled law that once a Representative Union appears, no one else can claim a parallel right to represent the workmen, the Court further held that allegations of mala fides or loss of confidence in the Representative Union do not create a right of separate appearance or impleadment.

Conclusion: The applicant had no locus standi to be impleaded as party-respondent and the request for impleadment was rightly refused.

Final Conclusion: The application was rejected because the workmen's interest was held to be adequately represented by the Representative Union already before the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a Representative Union is duly recognised under the governing industrial statute and has entered appearance, an unrecognised committee or individual workmen cannot claim an independent right to represent the same workmen, and allegations against the Representative Union do not defeat that statutory bar.

---