(1.) A Law graduate in the process of becoming an advocate takes an oath solemnly declaring that "I will bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of India of India as by Law established and that I will endeavour to uphold the traditions, Privileges and dignity of the Legal Profession and that I will loyally and faithfully discharge the duties of an Advocate to the best of my knowledge and judgment." Preamable to the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India under Section 49 (1) (c) of the Advocates Act in the matter of standards of Professional conduct and etiquette to be observed by advocates reads as follows:-
(2.) Matters of procedure is normally not in the know of the clients. It is an area where the advocate is expected to have sufficient knowledge and familiarity. Otherwise it would lead to indiscriminate filing of misconceived cases. Such "reckless litigative misadventures (B.N. Srikrishna, C.J. in Writ Appeal No. 188 of 2002 ) are liable to be put a stop to. The advocate has a duty to screen fraudulent and frivolous litigation at the instance of dubious clients. The advocate has first to apply his mind and see whether a case that is proposed to be filed is maintainable. He has to make sure that the case will not be a misuse or abuse of the process of court. It is sad and unfortunate that nowadays no serious attention is shown in these areas. Courts usually dismiss such frivolous cases my imposing costs on the parties. But there is no justice or justification in blaming and burdening the parties if they are otherwise innocent. It is the advocates who display procedural acrobtics resulting in abuse or misuse of the process of the court who are to be made liable in such cases. It is the advocates who are expected to know the procedures. As ministers of justice and officers of the court they are bound to guard the sacred institution. Hence when the keeper himself plays the poacher, courts should take appropriate steps including awarding of costs on such advocates.
(3.) With this prologue I shall proceed to deal with the merits of the case. The challenge in both the original petitions is essentially against a reference made by the first respondent for adjudication by the industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode. The issue relates to claim for regularization by certain workers in the Kannur District Co-opertive Bank, Kannur. The workers are arrayed as respondents 7 to 43 in O.P. No.1273 of 2002 and respondents 4 to 8 in O.P. No. 1320 of 2002. The parties are represented by counsel.