FRANCIS GOMEZ AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two main questions are raised in this original petition : (1) Whether consent as envisaged under Sec. 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), to legal practitioners to appear in a proceeding before the Labour Court can be implied on the facts and circumstances of the case; and (2) Whether consent once given can be revoked at a later stage.

(2.) An industrial dispute was raised by an employees union regarding termination of services of certain employees of the canteen run by the Kerala Financial Corporation Employees' Cooperative Society Ltd. In the array of parties, the petitioners arc made parties as representing the management. The industrial dispute was numbered as I. D. No.27 of 1992. The first posting of the case was on March 6, 1992. On that day itself advocate, Sri. M. S. Vijayachandra Babu, filed vakalath for the management. The union was represented by the President of the union who also happened to be a practising advocate. The case was adjourned to April 10, 1992, and there were several subsequent postings. On the sixth posting an oral objection was raised by the union regarding representation of the management by a lawyer. Sec. 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, reads as follows:

(3.) There is no provision under Sec. 36(4) to withdraw the consent once given. Once the consent is given, it cannot subsequently be withdrawn. I am fortified in this view by the decision of this Court in Calicut Co-operative Milk Supply Union Vs. Calicut Co-operative Milk Supply Workers Union, (1986-II-LLJ-422) , wherein it was held that: