STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD Vs. B YELLAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the orders dated 1. 7. 2005, 4. 8. 2005 and 2. 1. 2007 passed by the I Additional Labour Court, bangalore, produced at Annexures D, E and G respectively.

(2.) PETITIONER is a Government of India enterprise, a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act. Respondent is a workman employed by the petitioner company. Respondent filed an application under Section 33c (2) of the Industrial disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') claiming certain amounts. On 27. 4. 2005 respondent filed an application under section 36 of the Act inter alia objecting the petitioner from engaging the services of an advocate. Petitioner filed objections to the same and the Labour Court by its order dated 1. 7. 2005 allowed the application filed by the workman and rejected the request of the petitioner for engaging the services of the advocate. The Officers of the Industrial and Commercial Employers association (for short 'icea') filed an application inter alia seeking permission to represent the petitioner management. On 4. 8. 2005 the Labour Court rejected the said application on the ground that, the respondent is not represented by a union or an advocate hence petitioner also cannot engage the services of an advocate or officers of the Association. Petitioner filed one more application on 26. 8. 2007 inter alia seeking permission to be represented by the officers of ICEA. The Labour Court on 2. 1. 2007 rejected the said application as not maintainable in view of the earlier lwo orders passed on i. 7. 2005 and 4. 8. 2005. These orders are called in question by the petitioner in this writ petition.

(3.) SRI K. Kasturi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Section 36 (2) of the Act provided for an officer of an association of employers and petitioner being a member of ICEA, is entitled to be represented by the officers of icea. In this regard he relied on the judgment reported in 1976 vol. II L. L. J page 52 and pointed out that a lawyer simplicitor cannot appear before a Tribunal, without the consent of the opposite party. However a lawyer can appear as an office-bearer of a trade union or as an officer of an association of employers and in such case, the consent of opposite party and the leave of the Tribunal is not necessary. Relying on para 15, he submitted thai a legal practitioner is appointed as an officer of a company or corporation and he is paid and is under control of the company or Corporation, the fact that he was earlier a legal practitioner or has a legal degree will not stand in the way of the company or the- corporation being represented by such officer. He further submitted that no permission is required to engage the services of an officer who incidentally holding a law degree. He also relied on para 16 of the said judgment and submitted, that the Tribunal cannot go into the question of motive for appointment of such legal practitioners as office-bearers of the trade unions or as officers of the employers' associations when law clearly provides for engaging the services of an officer or office bears of the assoction whether he is a legal practitioner or not, is not the scope of Section 36 of the Act. Once a person whose services is sough; to he engaged under Section 36 ( 1) or (2) he is entitled to represent the company or the Corporation, similarly the workman is also entitled to engage such person. Only the services of an advocate simplicitor cannot he engaged by the petitioner, without the consent of the respondent as contemplated under Section 36 (4) of the Act.