ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD HYDERABAD Vs. ANDHRA PRADESH POWER DIPLOMA ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION TRADE UNION KOTAGUNDAM THERMAL POWER STATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second round of litigation for the same cause. The cause for adjudication is whether the practising Advocates can represent the employer not as its Counsel but as office bearers of Federation of Andhra Pradesh Chambers of Commerce and Industry.

(2.) The Andhra Pradesh Power Diploma Engineers Association has raised and industrial dispute in I. D. No. 44 of 1991 on the file of the 2nd respondent. The respondents are the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board represented by its Member-Secretary and its Chief Engineer (Electrical). I. A. No. 181 of 1992 was filed by the above Association which is hereinafter referred to as the 1st respondent, while the Electricity Board and its Chief Engineer are referred to as the petitioners. When notice were served on the petitioners, they had engaged Mr. C. V. Mohan Reddy and another, Advocates, to represent the petitioners and to contest the case on their behalf. The said representation was not in the capacity of Advocates, but in the capacity of Honorary Joint Secretaries of Federation of A. P. Chambers of Commerce and Industry. I. A. No. 181 of 1992 was filed by the 1st respondents questioning the right of the said two Advocates contending that they are not the Officers, who fall within the ambit of sub-section (2) of Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that they fall only within the meaning of the term 'legal practitioner' referable to Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that in view of the bar contained under Section 36(3) thereof and as the 1st respondents is not consenting for the appearance of the above legal practitioners on behalf of the petitioners, the above legal practitioners cannot represent the cause of the petitioners before the Industrial Tribunal. On previous occasion, the Industrial Tribunal, which is the 2nd respondent herein, has upheld the contention of the 1st respondent. Then Writ Petition No. 11101 of 1993 was filed by the petitioners and the same was disposed of by me by Order dated 20-9-1993 remitting the matter back to the 2nd respondent for consideration afresh as some fact finding was necessary as also the consideration of judicial precedents pertinent to the matter. Again, the Tribunal passed the order holding the same view as contended by the 1st respondent, thus, disentitling the above legal practitioners from representing the petitioner in the above I. D. Hence, this Writ Petition.

(3.) On behalf of the Writ Petitioners, Mr. K. Srinivasa Murthy, contends that the above legal petitioners are the officers of Federation of A. P. Chambers of Commerce and Industry and as such as entitled to represent the cause of the petitioner under Section 36(2) of Industrial Act, 1947 and that merely because the above officers are the legal practitioners that should not make any difference.