KAMAKSHI R IYER Vs. HINDUSTAN DOOR-OLIVER LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Reference under the Industrial Disputes Act is pending before the Labour Court at Bombay since 1988 between Smt. Kamakshi R. Iyer, a workman and Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Ltd.- the employer. The employer on 20th April 1983 made an application to the Labour Court stating that ms. Iyer is being represented by her husband Mr. Ramchandran, that during all these years application after application is being filed by Mr. Ramchandran. It is further stated that the provisions of Section 36 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which debar legal practitioner being allowed to represent in any proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act, came for scrutiny before the Allahabad High Court and by a decision reported in 1992 (64) F. L. R. 968, the allahabad High Court held that section 36 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act is ultravires Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. It is stated that earlier Court had specifically rejected the application of the company to engage a lawyer, therefore the said order be reviewed.

(2.) BY an order dated 24. 10. 1994, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court Bombay reviewed the previous order of refusing permission to engage the lawyer to the company and granted permission to the company for being represented by an advocate. In the order the learned judge has observed that from the proceedings it is clear that the written statement is filed on record in the month of February 1989 and both the parties filed their documents on and from 18. 5. 1989 but the matter has not proceeded any further and considering the case law cited and the facts of the case and the point of delaying tactics by abusing the procedure by both sides by filing unnecessary applications, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the assistance of the advocate to proceed with the matter with the legal provisions is required by allowing appearance of advocate for the company. The order states that the learned Judge asked the workman to engage advocate and if it is not possible then to approach the legal aid committee, but the workman has failed to do so. It is on these grounds the learned Judge allowed the application of the company.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Labour Court the workman preferred a writ petition being writ petition No. 129 of 1995. The learned single Judge by his order dated 30. 1. 1995 passed the following orders :