P MALLESH Vs. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES TRIBUNALLABOUR COURT HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is referred to a Division Bench by Gangadhara Rao, J. as he felt that an important and interesting question of law is raised in the writ petition which affects both the employers and the workers under the Industrial Disputes Act; and that is how the writ petition is before us.

(2.) The petitioner is a workman employed in Aluminium Industries Ltd., Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad. His services were terminated by the management without even serving an order of termination. So, he raised a dispute and the Government referred the question of termination of the services of the petitioner to the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner filed an interlocutory application objecting to the appearance of Shri K Srinivasamurthy, an Advocate of this Court, on behalf of the management of Aluminium Industries Ltd. Alternatively, the petitioner pleaded that, in the event of Sri Srinivasamurthy being permitted to appear for the management, he (Petitioner) may be paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to engage a senior lawyer to represent his cause. That application was resisted by the management on the ground that Sri K. Srinivasamurthy was not appearing in his capacity as an Advocate, but only in his rapacity as an Honorary Joint Secretary of the Federation of the Andhra Pradesh Chambers of Commerce and Industry, of which Aluminium Industries Ltd., is a member, and that Sri Srinivasamurthy, being a member of the Managing Committee of the Federation of the Andhra Pradesh Chamber of Commerce and Industry, he is competent and entitled to appear in that capacity before the Labour Court on behalf of the management. The Labour Court accepted the defence raised by the management and dismissed the interlocutory application. It is this order of the Labour Court in the interlocutory applications that is challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Siddappa, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, mainly contended that Sri Srinivasamurthy is not appearing in his capacity as an Honourary Joint Secretary of the Federation of Andhra Pradesh Chamber of Commerce and Industry, as he is also receiving fees from Aluminium Industries Ltd., that he cannot, while being an Advocate, engage himself in any trade, business or profession without the permission of the Bar Council of India under the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961; that the management cannot be permitted to gain advantage by engaging a senior Advocate io the prejudice of the workmen, who is unable to engage an Advocate of the Standing of Sri Srinivasamurthy; and that any permission granted to Sri Srinivasamurthy would amount to denying equal opportunity to the petitioner workman. It is also contended that the Labour Court, having allowed Sri Srinivasamurthy to appear for the management, should have directed the management to pay Rs.1, 000/- to enable the petitioner to engage a senior Counsel.