MANAGEMENT M S HINDUSTAN MOTORS EARTH MOVING EQUIPMENT DIVISION LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petition Nos.20933 & 23606 of 2006 have been filed against the order of the Labour Court/first respondent made in I.A.No.117/2006 in I.D.No.514/2001 dated 19.6.2006 and the other four writ petitions were filed against the order in I.A.Nos. 68 to 71 of 2005 in C.P.Nos.209 of 2004, 214 of 2004, 455 of 2004 and 456 of 2004 respectively to quash the identical order dated 03.3.2006 and also to declare Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, 'I.D. Act'] as ultravires of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

(2.) IT is seen from the reco rds that the second respondent workman engaged an authorised representative to defend him in I.D.No.514/2001, relating to his non-employment. The writ petitioners were represented by a counsel and they filed Vakalat as early as on 27.3.2002. After 55 adjournments of the case, the workman filed an application in I.A.No.117/2006 objecting to the writ petitioner/management being represented by a legal practitioner, taking advantage of section 36(4) of the I.D.Act. This was resisted by a counter affidavit filed by the writ petitioner/management stating that the fact relating to the objection has been raised after five years and after the pleadings were completed and when the witnesses were about to be cross-examined and it was also stated that once the workman did not object to the appearance of the legal practitioner on the side of the management, that would amount to implied consent and the workmen has sprung a surprise after five years and has taken a point that he is not granting consent for appearance of the legal practitioner.

(3.) WITHOUT concerning about the same, learned counsel for the workman states that the objection relating to the consent for appearance can be raised at any time and he also relied upon the decisions which were also cited before the Labour Court. There is not a single decision of this court has been cited holding the view that the objection relating to the consent could be raised at any stage of the proceedings. On the contrary, it must be held that if the workman wants to exercise his right under section 36 of the I.D. Act so as to prevent the employer from engaging a lawyer, he should raise his objection at the earliest point of time. In any event, this objection seems to be very trivial considering the fact that often the workmen are represented by a leader of a trade union who are well versed in Labour Laws and many times they are also Advocates and if such objections are raised at their behest, the managements can also get a membership from some Chamber of Commerce and can indirectly engage legal practitioners, who are otherwise office bearers of such an organisation. The spirit of Section 36 of the I.D. Act has been practically defeated by the hide and seek game adopted by the parties before the Labour Court over the years.