TATA STEEL LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner (management) and submits, impugned is order dtd. 3/2/2024 made by the Labour Court sustaining objection of opposite party no.2 (workman) regarding engagement of counsel by his client. Basis of the objection being inability of the workman to afford counsel, the Labour Court ought to have directed legal aid for him to deal with the objection.

(2.) On query from Court Mr. Mishra submits, the claim petition is disclosed as annexure-1. We reproduce below paragraph-8 and the prayer from it.

(3.) Mr. Mishra reminds us, challenge in the writ petition is to order dtd. 3/2/2024 made by the Labour Court rejecting representation of his client because the workman objected on saying he was unable to afford counsel. Mr. Mishra reiterates, he could have obtained legal aid. He relies on decision taken on 16/5/1990 of coordinate Bench in P. Adinarayan Reddy vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and others reported in 1991 LabIC 1477 to submit, impugned order be set aside with direction upon the Labour Court to adjudicate on merits of the objection raised by the workman.