HALL AND ANDERSON, LTD. Vs. S.K. NEOGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a rule upon the opposite parties to show cause why an order passed by the first respondent (the sixth industrial tribunal), dated 28 January 1953, should not be quashed, and why the said respondent should not be directed to allow Mr. S.M. Basu, chairman of the board of directors of the petitioner company, to appear before him and represent the company.

(2.) THE facts are briefly as follows: The petitioner is a public limited company. Some time about June 1952. disputes and differences arose between the petitioner and some of its workers represented by respondent 2. The State of West Bengal referred the disputes for adjudication to the first respondent, under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by a notification, dated 5 September 1952. Mr. S.M. Basu, a practising solicitor of this Court, has been a director of the said company since 1948 and is now the chairman of the board of directors. It is stated by the pettioner that the said Mr. S.M. Basu has been at the helm of the company's affairs and no one is better acquainted with the facts and circumstances leading up to the disputes referred as aforesaid. On 28 January 1953, the said Mr. Basu appeared before the tribunal at the hearing of the reference, to represent the petitioner. The first respondent, by his order, dated 28 January 1953, disallowed the respondent from appearing before him or representing the petitioner. The ground for disallowing Mr. Basu to appear and represent the company is based upon the interpretation pub by the first respondent upon Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which runs as follows: In any proceeding before a tribunal a party to a dispute may be represented by a legal practitioner with the consent of the other parties to the proceeding and with the leave of the tribunal.

(3.) THUS the provisions of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act has been brought into line with 'tion 33(3) of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950. The point which I have to decide, appears to have arisen in the case between Elgin Mills Company, Ltd., Kanpur and the Suti Mill Mazdoor Union, Kapur 1951 I L.L.J. 184, under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950.