MAHESHWARI GAS SERVICES Vs. BHURE LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the Petitioner impugns the order dated 3rd February, 2010 whereby the application of the Petitioner under Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, ,,ID Act) was dismissed and the application of the Respondent under Section 36 of the ID Act was allowed.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition are that the Respondent filed its claim before the Industrial Tribunal alleging illegal termination by the Petitioner. THE claim of the Respondent was filed through Universal Proutist Labour Federation (Registered) (in short, UPLF). THE Petitioner took the objection in the written statement that the Federation was not competent to espouse the cause of the Respondent and also filed an application under Section 36 of the ID Act claiming that the Federation was not registered with the Labour Department, it was not a registered trade union and nothing has been placed on record regarding the subscription of the membership by the workman to the union and that the workman has not disclosed when he became the member of the said union. An application was also filed by the Respondent under Section 36 of the ID Act contending that the management could not be represented through an Advocate. THE learned trial court held that in view of the bar under Section 36(3) of the ID Act, the Petitioner could not be represented by a legal practitioner or an Advocate and thus allowed the application of the Respondent and held that the Advocate was not entitled to appear for and on behalf of the management in the present case. As regards the application of the Respondent, it was held that it is not necessary that the workman should be a member of the union and any member of the executive or the office bearer of any trade union may be authorized under Section 36(1)(c) ID Act to represent the workman.

(3.) A perusal of sub-clause (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 36 of the ID Act shows that if a workman is a member of a registered trade union or a federation of trade unions, he can be represented by any member of the executive or other office bearer of the said trade union or the federation. Though learned counsel for the Respondent has tried to make a case under Section 36(1)(a) and (b), however, since no document has been filed before the trial court, it cannot be held that the Respondent has been successful in making out a case under Section 36(1)(a) and (b) of the ID Act. Thus, prima facie, there was no evidence before the trial court to come to the conclusion that the Respondent was duly represented by UPLF under Section 36(1) (a) and (b) of ID Act.