B YELLAPPA Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is the workman under the respondent-employer/management. The workman has filed an application under Section 33 (c) (2)of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act'), claiming certain amount. The workman had also filed an application under Section 36 of the Act. inter alia, objecting the management from engaging the services of an advocate in the proceedings. The application was contested by the management by filing its statement of objections. The Labour Court on consideration, by its order dated 1-7-2005, has allowed the application filed by the workman and has rejected the request of the management for engaging the services of an advocate to represent it, in the proceedings. The officers of the Industrial and Commercial employers' Association (for short 'icea')had filed an application, inter alia, seeking permission to represent the management. The labour Court, by an order 4-8-2005, has rejected the said application on the ground that the respondent is not represented by a Union or an advocate and hence the management cannot engage the services of the advocate or officers of the association. Management has subsequently filed another application, inter alia, seeking permission to be represented by the officers of the ICEA. Labour Court on consideration of the application, by its order dated 2-1-2007, has rejected the application as not maintainable, in view of the earlier orders dated 1-7-2005 and 4-8-2005.

(2.) MANAGEMENT had questioned the said three orders passed by the Labour Court in the writ petition. Writ petition was contested by the workman. On consideration of the record, learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and has quashed the impugned orders therein and has directed the Labour court to permit the management to engage the services of the office bearers of ICEA, also granting liberty to the workman to engage the services of an advocate, if he choses so. The workman has challenged in this appeal the order passed allowing the writ petition.

(3.) THE appellant, party-in-person, submitted that the person whose service is sought to be taken by the management, is an advocate and as such, the request was rejected, as there was no consent by him to engage the services of an advocate. He also referred to sub-section (4) of Section 36 of the Act and contended that there is clear bar for engaging of the services of an advocate before the Labour Court without the consent of the other side. The appellant contended that the Act being a special enactment, it is not proper to permit the engaging of the services of an advocate and he relied upon the decision in the case of paradeep Port Trust v. Their Workmen, reported in 1976-II-LLJ 409 : (AIR 1977 SC 36)and submitted that the employer which is government company is not entitled to engage the services of an advocate. The appellant contended that, the provisions of the Act, prevail over Section 30 (1) and (2) of the advocates Act, 1961 and as such, the restriction placed under sub-section (4) of Section 36 of the Act should prevail. He relied upon the decision reported in 1969 (2) LLJ 25 : (AIR 1966 Mys 225)and submitted that the persons whose service, is sought to be availed by the petitioner, is not the office bearer nor the employee of the management and he is not holding any office in the association and has no responsibility as law advisor nor is paid any remuneration and hence cannot be treated as office bearer of the association. The appellant relying upon certain other case law, submitted that the learned single Judge has erred in allowing the writ petition. It was submitted by the appellant that the order passed by the learned single Judge is contrary to the statutory provisions applicable to the matter and hence is liable to be set aside.