HINDUSTAN MOTORS LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. With the consent of the counsel for the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) This writ petition challenges the order dated 5th April, 2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 8 passed under Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). For reference Section 36 is set out below:

(3.) It is not in dispute that at some stage of the proceedings the workman was also appearing through a lawyer and at a later stage he objected to the appearance of a lawyer on behalf of the petitioner company i.e. management. It is also not in dispute that on the date when the respondent/workman objected to the appearance of the lawyer he was not being represented by a lawyer though earlier he was represented by a lawyer. In the impugned order passed under Section 36, the labour Court relied upon the judgment in Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India vs. Suraj Sharma and another reported as 1998(81) FLR 953, where a learned Single Judge of this Court held that merely because the workman had not objected earlier to the representation of the employer he could not be precluded from taking such objection at a later date. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought to distinguish the aforesaid judgment by relying on three judgments of Kerala, Bombay and Calcutta High Courts reported as 1987(54) FLR 326 (Kerala), 1996 (1) LLJ 580 (Bombay) and AIR 1956 Calcutta 353 which held the view that once consent is given implied or otherwise for engagement of a counsel by the management, the workman cannot object subsequently to the appearance of the lawyer. In my view in so far as the three judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned they take a different view taken by a learned Single Judge of this Court and I am bound to follow with the view of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Prasar Bharti case (supra) which with I respectfully agree. I regret my inability to agree with the view of the Bombay, Calcutta and Kerala High Courts referred to above. The learned counsel for the petitioner Shri K.D. Prasad further submits that the fact that workman had been appearing through counsel till the date prior to the date on which he took objection does not entitle the respondent to rely on the judgment in Prasar Bharti (supra). In reply the learned counsel for the respondent Shri Pankul Nagpal relied upon paragraph 7 of the Prasar Bharti judgment which reads as under: