A D SHASTRI Vs. S D PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions under Art. 227 of the Constitution are disposed of by a common judgment as they raise a common question whether an office-bearer of a registered trade union who also happens to be a legal practitioner is entitled in his capacity as such officer to represent workmen before a Labour Court or Industrial Court under S. 36(1)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 without obtaining consent of the other party required under S. 36(4) of the Act.

(2.) Messrs. Caprihans India Private Limited Co. (hereinafter referred to as the company) carries on business as manufacturers and owns factories at several places including Thana. The General Labour Union (Red Flag) and Caprihans Employees' Association, the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 1960 of 1973, are both trade unions registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1925 and represent respectively. Company's factory workmen and staff employees, Mr. A. D. Shastry, the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1959 of 1973 is the vice-president and general secretary respectively of the General Labour Union and the Caprihans Employees' Association. He is also enrolled as an advocate since 1963. Miss. Indira Jaising is also the secretary of the Caprihans Employees' Association and is also an advocate.

(3.) In July, 1972, a dispute between the company and its workman employed in its factory at Thana was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication by the Government of Maharashtra. The said reference was heard as Reference No. (IT) No. 246 of 1972. Before the Tribunal Mr. Rawell appeared as an advocate for the company and Mr. Shastry and Miss Indira Jaising appeared for workmen, as the vice-president and secretary respectively of the general Labour Union and Caprihans Employee's Association. The workmen objected to Mr. Rawell's appearance for the company and, therefore, the company also raised objection against Mr. Shastry's and Miss Indira Jaising's appearance under S. 36(4). The Tribunal by its order dated February 16, 1973 disallowed Mr. Rawell to appear as advocate for the company under S. 36(4). The Tribunal also disallowed both Mr. Shastry and Miss Indira Jaising to appear for the workmen as in its view unfair advantage would be secured by the employees over the company if they, who are admittedly legal practitioners, were allowed to represent the workman as the office bearers of their said respective trade unions. Against the said decision Mr. Rawell and the company filed Sp. C.A. No. 853 of 1973 and the General Labour Union and Caprihans Employees' Association filed the present Sp. C.A. No. 1960 of 1973.