B M JAMBUNATHAN Vs. UNITED NEWS OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed I. D. No. 39 of 2006, before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, visakhapatnam, against the 1st respondent herein, claiming certain relief. On receipt of notice, the 1st respondent entered appearance. A memo, dated 10. 4. 2006, was filed by the 1st respondent, authorizing Sri A. K. Seth and g. S. Ravishanker, to represent them in the matter. Petitioner filed LA. No. 38 of 2006, with a prayer that the Tribunal be pleased to disallow any request that may be made by the 1st respondent, to engage an advocate or Legal Practitioner, to represent them in the case. The 1st respondent, in turn, filed a counter-affidavit, opposing the application. It was mentioned that the petitioner is an enrolled Advocate, and in that view of the matter, they are also entitled to engage an Advocate in the I. D. Elaborate arguments were addressed before the tribunal, on this aspect. Through a detailed order, dated 22. 11. 2006, the Tribunal dismissed the LA. , according permission to the 1st respondent to avail the service of an advocate. The same is challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) SRI K. S. Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that sub-section (4) of Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes act (for short "the Act") is clear in its mandate, and except where the other party gives his consent and the Industrial tribunal grants leave, a party to the proceedings under the Act, cannot engage a practicing Advocate, on its behalf. He submits that the view taken by the Tribunal, in the order under challenge, is contrary to specific provisions of law, as well as the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court and other High Courts.

(3.) SRI Koka Srinivas Kumar, learned counsel for the 1 st respondent, on the other hand, submits that the I. A. was untenable, inasmuch as it is not referable to any provision of law. He contends that equity and fair treatment demand that once a party had the benefit of availing service of a skilled and trained Advocate, the other party cannot be denied such a facility.