PUNJABI GHASITARAM HALWAI KARACHIWALA Vs. SAHADEO SHIVRAM PAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN order of the Labour Court, Bombay, refusing to grant leave to the petitioner to be represented by an advocate in the proceedings before it is the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner is a partnership firm. The first respondent is a workman who was employed by the petitioner. In course of the employment, some charges came to be levelled against the first respondent on the basis of which a charge-sheet was served on him. A domestic enquiry was conducted and he was found guilty by the Enquiry Officer. He was, therefore, dismissed from the service by the petitioner vide order dated 25-9-1984.

(3.) AFTER his dismissal from service, the first respondent raised an industrial dispute under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act") which was referred to the Labour Court, Bombay, for adjudication. The Labour Court, Bombay, for adjudication. The Labour Court issued notice dated 1-11-1985 to the first respondent requiring him to file his statement of claim before 15-11-1985. A copy of the said notice was also sent to the petitioner. The petitioner also received a notice dated 1-11-1985 from the Labour Court requiring it to file its written statement on or before 21-11-1985 in reply to the statement of claim. The petitioner received another notice dated 1-11-1985 from the Labour Court informing that the matter will be taken up for hearing on 26-11-1985. Similar notice was also sent to the first respondent. On 26-11-1985, when the matter was on board of the Fifth Labour Court, Bombay, on behalf of the petitioner one Mr. K. N. Kapoor, Advocate appeared before the Labour Court and filed his Vakalatnama. The first respondent, however, did not appear on that day. He was absent. He also did not file the statement of claim as directed by the notice dated 1-11-1983. The matter was adjourned to 7-1-1986. On that day Mr. K. N. Kapoor, Advocate again appeared before the Labour Court on behalf of the petitioner. One Mr. Shridhar Poojari, Advocate and Secretary of the Bombay labour Union appeared on behalf of the first respondent. He also filed an objection to the appearance of Mr. K. N. Kapoor and Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that they were not having the representative character under Section 36 of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner filed a detailed reply to the objection. In the reply, it was contended inter alia, that the first respondent having not raised any objection to the to the appearance of the Advocate on the earlier date, it could not be sustained at that stage. The representation by an advocate was also sought to be sustained on the principle of equity and natural justice. The petitioner also objected to the representation of first respondent by Mr. Shridhar Poojari, who too was an advocate on the ground that there was no union by the name of bombay Labour Union of which Mr. Poojari was stated to be the Secretary, prevailing in the establishment of the petitioner.