G.VASANTHA, PROPRIETOR, Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court challenging Ext.P4 order of the Industrial Tribunal by which the prayer to allow the daughter-in-law of the petitioner to represent the petitioner before the Tribunal was rejected. Suffice it to state that the petitioner was the management and the dispute was raised by the Union on behalf of the workmen. When the matter was posted for appearance, the daughter-in-law of the petitioner appeared and produced an authorization letter from the petitioner. It was the contention of the management that it is a proprietorship firm and the firm is a family concern and due to the incapacity of the petitioner, she has to be represented by another person. Hence according to her, she has authorized her daughter-in-law. The Union, however, opposed the prayer on the ground that her daughter-in-law was a practising Advocate in the Courts at Kollam. No evidence was adduced.

(2.) ON the pleadings on record, the Industrial Tribunal found that Section 36(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 specifically speaks of the persons permitted to represent an employer and none other than the persons so referred therein could be allowed to represent an employer. The Tribunal also noticed Sub-Section (3) of Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 which specifically provides that a lawyer can be appointed by the management only on the permission being granted by the Union and otherwise in the case of the Union being represented by a lawyer. Considering the restrictions provided in Sections 36(2) and (3)of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, this Court is of the opinion that the findings of the Industrial Tribunal with respect to the restriction in Section 36(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 cannot be faulted with, especially since by permitting a lawyer to be represented as an authorised representative, that would be doing violence to Section 36(3)of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. In any event a family member cannot represent an employer nor is a family concern recognised by law.

(3.) IN the present case, the management is not a company and is a proprietorship concern and the principles of the said decision cannot be imported to the facts of the above case. However, to do substantial justice especially in the context of the Union having specifically contended that the petitioner was assisted by her sons in carrying on the business, the Industrial Tribunal shall allow either of her sons to represent her on their producing a proper authorization. It is also open to the petitioner to appear herself to proceed with the case before the Tribunal.