(1.) The writ petitioners have challenged Order No. 15 dated January 24, 2013 passed by the Presiding Judge, Second Labour Court, West Bengal allowing the application filed by the workman under Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 objecting the appointment of a legal practitioner to conduct the case of the writ petitioners before the Second Labour Court. The respondent-workman on April 21, 2011 filed an objection under Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 stating that the applicant has remained unemployed from the date of termination of his service with effect from May 18, 2008 and is in penury. The respondent-workman contended that he has not given any consent to the appointment of a legal practitioner to represent the writ petitioners before the Second Labour Court in pending reference. The writ petitioners, thereafter, appeared before the Tribunal through a legal practitioner and claimed to have filed a vakalatnama on August 29, 2011, when the Tribunal presumably recorded that the writ petitioners have filed a letter of authority and fixed September 22, 2011 for filing written statement. The parties were directed to file suggested issues and discover document.
(2.) The objection filed by the respondent-workman was, thereafter, taken up for consideration on January 24, 2013 and the Presiding Judge, Second Labour Court taking into consideration the facts stated in the objection-petition declined to allow the writ petitioners to be represented in the reference by a legal practitioner.
(3.) Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, submits that once the Labour Court permits the representation of the writ petitioners on August 29, 2011, it has to be presumed that implied consent has been given by the writ petitioners by not contemporaneously raising an objection at the time of filing vakalatnama by the said legal practitioner on behalf of the writ petitioners. It is submitted that the consent referred to in Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, includes an implied consent and having regard to the fact that the respondent-workman did not raise any objection when such vakalatnama was filed. It has to be presumed that the workman had impliedly given consent to the representation of the writ petitioners by a legal practitioner.