KALINGA STUDIOS LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI S. B. Nanda, a leading labour lawyer of the State, wanted to appear on behalf of the management of M/s. Kalinga Studios Ltd. , the petitioner, as an 'officer' of the Utkal Chamber of Commerce and Industries Ltd. , and the prayer having been refused by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, this application has been filed stating that the petitioner was entitled to be represented by Shri Nanda because of what has been stated in Section 36 (2) (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter, 'the Act' ).

(2.) THERE is no dispute that the aforesaid provision allows an officer of an association of employers, of which he is a member, to represent the employer in any proceeding under the Act. The only other relevant provision, which is necessary to be noted, is Sub-section (4) of Section 36, which has stated that in any proceeding before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National 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 Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be. The present is admittedly not a case falling within Sub-section (4) and the only provision pressed into service is Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 36. Let us see whether the case comes within the fold of that clause.

(3.) THE decision of the apex Court on this aspect is that of Paradip Port Trust v. Their Workmen (1976-II-LLJ-409 ). Relying on this decision Shri Misra submits that the impugned order is not sustainable as it is urged that there is no scope for enquiry by the Tribunal into the motive for appointment of a legal practitioner as an officer of the employer's association, as stated in paragraph 16 of the judgment (p. 414 ). We shall advert to motive later; but first, let it be seen as to the ground on which the Presiding Officer rejected the application of the petitioner to be represented by Shri Nanda.