UTKAL AUTOMOBILES LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE controversy raised in this case turns on the interpretation of Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). The moot question for consideration is whether the Industrial Tribunal was right in rejecting permission sought by the petitioner-company to be represented through Shri Prafulla Kumar Mohanty.

(2.) IN the writ application the petitioner-company has prayed for quashing the order of the Tribunal dated September 26, 1994 (Annexure 1) rejecting the authorisation in Form 'c' executed in favour of Shri P. K. Mohanty. The reason for rejection is stated in the following terms:

(3.) THE relevant facts necessary for consideration of the point may be stated thus : In the 'g' form submitted by the petitioner it was stated that Shri P. K. Mohanty is the Labour Advisor of the Company and, therefore, is entitled to represent the management in the case. The Tribunal initiallv did not accept the authorisation in favour of Shri P. K. Mohanty in the order dated July 15, 1994 holding that he is a legal practitioner and the workers Association opposes his representation. Subsequently, the workers' Association Having conceded that Shri P. K. Mohanty is neither a lawyer nor a registered legal practitioner the Tribunal reconsidered the matter and passed the order as per Annexure-1 refusing representation for the reasons stated earlier. Therefore, the question is whether the petitioner-company is entitled to be represented by Shri P. K. Mohanty under Section 36 (2) of the Act.