ORISSA CEMENT LTD Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REFUSAL by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur to accept prayer of M/s Orissa Cement Limited, the petitioner there in after referred to as the 'management') to be represented by a legal practitioner in a proceeding before it, is assailed in this writ application.

(2.) UNDISPUTED factual position is as follows: Services of one Shri Baijnath Pareek (Opp. Party No. 5) there in after referred to as 'workman') were terminated, purportedly in terms of certified standing orders of the management, with effect from April 15, 1990. On a dispute being raised, the matter was conciliated by the Asst. Labour Commissioner, Rourkela and since it ended in failure, the Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report to the State Government of Orissa. On being satisfied that an industrial dispute existed between the management and the workman, State Government referred the dispute to Labour Court, Sambalpur, in exercise of power conferred under Sub-section (5) of Section 12 read with clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, the 'act' ). On receipt of the reference on September 4,1991 Labour Court fixed October 22, 1991 for filing of statement of claims by the workman. Such statement was filed, a petition slating that he wanted to engage a counsel to represent him, and sought for necessary permission under Section 36 of the Act. The date was fixed to November 26, 1991 for filing written statement by the management. The workman was represented through counsel on that day, while management sought for time to file its counter. The matter was adjourned to January 4, 1992. On that day both parties were present, and the management prayed for further time to file the written statement. The prayer was accepted, and the matter was adjourned to February 15, 1992. The written statement was filed by the management on February 15, 1992 and the matter was posted to March 25, 1992 for settlement of issues. On that day management asked for time on the ground that its advocate was sick and was unable to attend the Court. Prayer for adjournment was accepted and the matter was adjourned to May 22, 1992 subject to payment of cost of Rs. 100/- to the workman. On the date fixed, the workman was present, and filed a memorandum stating that he was unable to engage any advocate and desired to appear in person. A memorandum was filed by the management with a prayer to be allowed to engage a lawyer to represent it. Simultaneously an authorisation in Form G under Rule 38 of the Orissa Industrial Disputes Rules, 1959 (in short, the 'rules') was filed. By order dated May 22, 1992 the Labour Court rejected the motion by both workman and the management to be represented through counsel. This order dated May 22, 1992 is the subject-matter of challenge in this writ application.

(3.) ACCORDING to Mr. Pujari, learned counsel appearing for the management-petitioner, there was implied consent for engagement of legal practitioner by the workman, and merely because at a later stage, he backed out and wanted to conduct his case in person, that should not have weighed with the Labour Court, Further it is submitted that there has been manipulations in the order dated May 22, 1992 and the consent by the workman was sought to be nullified by manipulating records. The learned counsel for workman, however, submitted that there was never any consent, and the certified copy does not reflect the correct position, and the original records reflect it. According to him, the records have not been manipulated, and even if it is accepted that certain inaccuracies exist, they do not really affect conclusions of the Labour Court. No consent was given, not even an implied consent.