R. SUDHAKARAN Vs. LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions are filed by one and the same petitioner, a workman. It concern an order passed by the Labour Court, Kozhikode permitting the management to be represented by a legal practitioner. W.P.(C).No.34101/2007 is filed challenging the above order. When the challenge was pending before this Court and a stay was granted against the order permitting the management to represent through the legal practitioner, (produced as Ext.P3), the management sought permission before the Labour Court to represent through an officer of the Employers' Federation. That request was allowed. In fact, the Officer of the Federation of Association of Employers, who was permitted to appear is the same lawyer, who was permitted to represent as the legal practitioner as per the order which is the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(C).No.34101/2007. The workman challenged the order of the Labour Court permitting the management to appear through the officer of the Employers' Federation in W.P.(C).No.20562/2009 (produced as Ext.P5).

(2.) In view of the common issues involved in both these writ petitions, it is appropriate to dispose these writ petitions by a common judgment.

(3.) In so far as the issue in W.P. (C).No.34101/2007 is concerned, I shall deal with the facts leading to the order The dispute that was referred for adjudication is, in fact, in regard to the issue which led to the termination of the workman. The Labour Court issued summons to the management. The first hearing was on 26/3/2007. On that day, the workman appeared in person. The management was represented by Advocate Abdussalam. The Advocate representing the management submitted before the Labour Court that, Sri E.K.Nandakumar from Menon and Pai proposes to appear for the management. On that day, a claim statement was filed on behalf the workman. He also gave a copy of the claim statement to Advocate Abdussalam during the roll call in the Labour Court. The case was then adjourned to 3/5/2007. Immediately after the case was adjourned, the workman stood up and submitted before that court that he had objection in the matter of the management engaging a lawyer. It was specifically noted by the Labour Court that the workman went to the back side of the benches during court hours and thereafter, came back making a submission as above. Thereafter, the objection was considered. Taking note of the fact that the workman had already given a copy of the claim statement to Advocate Abdussalam and the workman had not objected the proposal of Advocate Abdussalam that Advocate Nandakumar was proposing to appear on behalf of the management, the Court found that the Workman cannot retract from his consent already given in the matter. Accordingly, the objections were overruled and the management was permitted to appear through Advocate Nandakumar.