SUBHASH Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an abkari contractor, is one of the respondents in a claim case filed by the abkari workers before the Labour Court claiming arrears of wages. The other respondents who are also abkari contractors do not appear to have filed any Original Petition challenging Ext. P2 common order of the Labour Court, Kollam, declining permission to a lawyer to represent them in the proceedings before the Labour Court on account of objections raised by the workers under S.36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner's case is that the lawyer who sought to represent the petitioner and other abkari contractors, namely, Sri. Nalinakshan, is "an officer of the association of abkari contractors and is eligible to represent them by virtue of S.36(2)(c) of the I.D. Act." A copy of the resolution (not a certified copy) electing the said advocate as Secretary of the Abkari Contractors Association was rejected by the Labour Court as sufficient proof to establish that the said Advocate Sri. Nalinakshan is an officer of the Association eligible to represent the contractors. It is this order that is under challenge in this Original Petition.

(2.) I heard counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondents. It is very unfortunate that a wage claim of toddy workers before the Labour Court is helped up for over eight years on a silly dispute of this nature. Even now, the effort of the petitioner is only to protract the mater by requesting for further time for production of document to substantiate that counsel who sought to represent the petitioner and other abkari contractors is an officer of the association duly appointed by them. In any case, since the case was pending for so many years, at the time of hearing, counsel for the petitioner was asked to produce documents other than what was produced before the Labour Court to substantiate the petitioner's case. In spite of another posting given for the same, no new document is produced and the only contention, as in the Labour Court by the petitioners, is that counsel Sri. Nalinakshan who sought to represent the petitioner and other abkari contractors is an Honorary Secretary of the association of which the petitioner and other abkari contractors are members. There is no dispute that S.36(4) of the I.D. Act is a prohibition against a lawyer, representing in his capacity as such for either of the parties in the proceedings before court without the consent of the other party and the court. The worker respondents in this case raised objection before the Labour Court against the Advocate, Sri. Nalinakshan, representing the petitioner and other abkari contractors and unless he comes within the meaning of "an officer of the employers' association" he will not be entitled to represent the petitioner and other abkari contractors by virtue of S.36(2)(c) of the I.D. Act. For easy reference, the provisions of S.36(2) and (4) which are relevant are extracted hereunder: