RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein is a practicing advocate since 1975. He has also served the Government of Madhya Pradesh and the Government of Chhattisgarh as Panel Lawyer and also represented the Government of Chhattisgarh before the Labour Court. He has challenged legality, validity and correctness of order dated 18.04.2017 passed by the Labour Court by which the said court has annulled all his appearances made in various cases on behalf of the State Government since 2013 holding that he has failed to furnish order of appointment issued by the Government/or its officer-incharge duly appointing him to appear in those proceedings and said order has been passed in exercise of power conferred under Sec. 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(2.) Mr. T.K. Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, would submit that such an order passed by the Labour Court is totally unsustainable and bad in law. He would further submit that no such power is conferred by Sec. 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to annul his appearances already made on behalf of his party/client (State Government) as those appearances have become final. He would further submit that the State Government or its officers have not disputed his appearances so made or has not stated that the petitioner was not at all authorized to appear on behalf of the Government or its officer or he made appearances without instructions on behalf of the Government as such the order impugned is in excess of its jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.

(3.) Mr. Arun Sao, learned Deputy Advocate General, would submit that boycotting the court and abstaining from court proceeding is contrary to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.