JASBIR SINGH Vs. HYGIENIC FOODS, MALERKOTLA ROAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order of the Labour Court, dated 19th January, 2007 (Annexure P -3), wherein an application moved by the Petitioners under Section 36(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act has been rejected on the ground that there is an implied consent granted to the authorised representative.

(2.) COUNSEL for the Petitioner contends that the impugned order dated 18th October, 2000 cannot be sustained in the light of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Indrasan Parsad v. Presiding Officer and Anr., 2008(1) S.C.T. 522, wherein this Court has held that the consent of the party must be specific and so has to be the leave by the Court and it should be at the beginning of the proceedings so that there remains no ambiguity in the status of the legal practitioner who appears after due consent and leave. It has further been held that the implied consent of the party or implied leave of the Court are alien to the provisions of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(3.) HE on this basis submits that although the authorised representative of the Respondent No. 1 holds licence under the Advocates Act and is also a member of the District Bar Association, Ludhiana, but in the light of the fact that he is not practising in any court of law as is the specific stand of the Respondent No. 1 which has not been controverted by the Petitioners, he would not fall within the ambit of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act.