HYGIENIC FOODS MALERKOTLA ROAD Vs. JASBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (for himself, T.S. Thakur, CJ, Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia and Jaswant Singh, Hemant Gupta, Dissenting JJ. -) The short issue raised in this reference is whether an employer can be validly represented by a practising advocate enrolled under the Advocates Act, 1961 (for brevity, 'the Advocates Act'), in an industrial dispute by becoming an officer of an association of employers of which such an employer is a member, or a federation of such associations of employer under Section 36(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, 'the ID Act').

(2.) IN order to put the controversy in its proper perspective, it would be appropriate to first notice a few facts. The services of workmen-respondents were terminated by their employer-Hygienic Foods who are the appellants in this letters patent appeal. The workmen-respondents raised industrial disputes regarding termination of their services. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Ludhiana, in the shape of various references. During the pendency of the proceedings when most of the references were fixed for arguments, an application was filed on 18.12.2006 on behalf of the workmen-respondents before the Labour Court raising objection to the appearance of Mr. B.P. Bansal and his associates for the Hygienic Foods (P-1). The principal plea raised by placing reliance on Section 36(4) of the ID Act was that the workmen-respondents did not consent to the appearance of Mr. B.P. Bansal and his associates for Hygienic Foods being advocates and that they could not be regarded as 'officer' of an association of employer or federation of such an association of employers within the meaning of Section 36(2)(a) and (b) of the ID Act. The application was contested by the employer Hygienic Foods by filing reply (P-2). The Labour Court held that Sarvshri B.P. Bansal, Manoj Bansal and their associates have been representing the Hygienic Foods in those industrial disputes since the year 2000/2001 and most of the references were then fixed for arguments, therefore, there was implied consent by the workmenrespondents for their appearance to represent Hygienic Foods and the same could not be withdrawn. The other ground was that the application was filed at a belated stage. Accordingly, the Labour Court dismissed the application vide its order dated 19.1.2007 (P-3).

(3.) THE employer-Hygienic Foods did not feel satisfied with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and preferred LPA No. 250 of 2009. The Letters Patent Bench, vide its order dated 24.4.2009, expressed the opinion that observations in para 38 made by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Indrasan Parsad (supra) were in conflict with those of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in paras 16 and 17 of the judgment rendered in the case of Paradip Port Trust, Paradip v. Their Workmen, AIR 1977 SC 36. The relevant part of the reference order in extenso is extracted below, which reads thus :-