IN RE : JITENDRA NATH BANERJEEAN ADVOCATE Vs. ABC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a strange application by an Advocate of this Court, who feels himself aggrieved by an order made by an Industrial Tribunal for payment of costs against his client, a trade union.

(2.) The circumstances under which this application has been made are hereinafter set out in brief. The petitioner, Jitendra Nath Banerjee, says that he practises both in this Court and before Industrial Tribunals, in the New Secretariat Buildings, Calcutta. In paragraphs 2 to 6 of the petition, the petitioner gives an account of an unpleasant incident, on March 25, 1965, in which he alleges to have become involved in an unspecified case before the Fourth Industrial Tribunal. According to the petitioner the consequence of the incident was that the Tribunal became ill disposed towards the petitioner. That incident is not the subject of this application and is related only to serve as a background to the main allegation contained in the petition. The petitioner further states that on May 18, 1965 (wrongly described as April 18, 1965, at places in the petition), the petitioner was to appear before the same Tribunal in an industrial dispute between Messrs. Shalimar Paints Ltd. and their workmen of the head office. On that day, the petitioner alleges, he remained otherwise engaged before this Court and could not appear before the Tribunal in due time. Thereupon, the Tribunal made the following order:-

(3.) In paragraph 13 of the petition, the petitioner alleges that later in the day he saw the Judge of the Tribunal in his chamber, explained the circumstances whereby he was prevented from appearing in time and regretted the inconvenience caused by his absence. Thereafter, he filed an application for the matter being put up for hearing. That application was considered by the Tribunal, on May 24, 1965, and the following order was made:-