PRAMOD TRADING CO Vs. MAHESHBHAI PUNJABHAI THAKOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this petition is made by the Employer to the order passed by the Labour Court, Vadodara dated 19.01.2012 in Recovery Application No.178 of 2008. By the said order, the Labour Court has restrained the petitioner from availing the service of an advocate, since the representative of the Union has raised objection in that regard.

(2.) LEARNED advocate for the petitioner has submitted that there is no employee employer relationship between the petitioner and the respondent and inspite of that, the respondent had projected himself to be the workman of the petitioner and further that though there is no award in his favour, he has straightway filed Recovery Application invoking provisions of Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, wherein apart from the facts, even the legal submissions are required to be made before the Labour Court and therefore the assistance of an Advocate is required by the petitioner. It is further submitted that, on behalf of the respondent a legally trained mind like the Union representative is appearing and thus, though the petitioner has good case on merits, he may not be able to put his case effectively before the Labour Court. It is submitted that, under these circumstances, on behalf of the petitioner appearance of an Advocate was filed which is objected by the other side and under these circumstances, impugned order is passed by the Labour Court, which may be interfered with.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is quite clear and therefore there was no occasion for the Labour Court to grant sanction ignoring the objection of the respondent and therefore Labour Court has not committed any error. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench in the case of J.B.Transport Company vs. Shankarlal @ Mavaram Nathuji Patel in Special Civil Application No.2687 of 1998 dated 22.07.1998 as confirmed by the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal No.1101 of 1998 vide order dated 09.12.1998. It is submitted that this petition be dismissed.