HARBANS SINGH Vs. M/S. ALEMBIC LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge herein is to the order, Annexure P-1 passed in an application under Sec. 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, whereby the prayer that the petitioner-workman is appearing in person before Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal below, therefore, the respondent-management be also to directed appear in person has been declined and the application dismissed.

(2.) A reference registered as Reference Petition No. 10/2006 made by the competent authority on the demands raised by the petitioner is pending disposal before learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Shimla. The reference initially was answered in favour of the petitioner-workman ex-parte, however, on an application moved by the respondent-management, the ex-parte award was set-aside and the Reference Petition ordered to be decided on merits. The order passed by the Labour Court was assailed in this Court in CWP No. 1910 of 2009. The writ petition was dismissed with a direction to the Labour Court to take the Reference Petition to its logical end. Even LPA No. 69/2011 filed by the petitioner-workman was also dismissed vide judgment dated 25.5.2016. The matter after its remand has now been landed in the Labour Court. The petitioner-workman after remand of the case intends to conduct the proceedings in Reference Petition in person. Since the respondent-management is represented by legal practitioner, therefore, this has led in filing the application under Sec. 36(4) of the Act by the petitioner-workman, which has been considered by learned Labour Court and dismissed vide the order under challenge.

(3.) Admittedly, initially not only the respondent-management but the petitioner-workman was also represented by legal practitioner, they engaged on their behalf right from the institution of the Reference Petition till the disposal thereof by the Labour Court and during the course of proceedings in Civil Writ Petition as well as LPA aforesaid in this Court. Sec. 36(4), no doubt, provides for representation of a party in pending proceedings before a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal by a legal practitioner, however, with the consent of opposite party to the proceedings and with the leave of Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal as the case may be. In the case in hand, the respondent-management when served with the notice in Reference Petition had put in appearance through Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate before learned Labour court. Neither the petitioner-workman nor learned Labour Court had objected to appearance by the management in this manner in the pending Reference Petition. Therefore, not only the petitioner-workman has consented for representation of the respondent-management by the counsel but the Labour Court has also permitted it to do so. Being so, at this stage, when the Reference Petition has been remanded by this Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, the respondent-management cannot be relegated to the stage i.e. entering of appearance by it initially on its service in the Reference Petition because the provisions contained under Sec. 36(4) of the Act in the matter of appearance through a legal practitioner postulates to that stage and not any subsequent stage like in the case in hand. The arguments that after remand of the case by this Court, it has to be treated as a fresh case addressed on behalf of the petitioner-workman cannot be accepted nor persuade this Court to form an opinion that the remand of the case has relegated the same to the initial stage when the respondent-management had put in appearance.