GRAPES SYNTHETICS PRIVATE Vs. JUDGE LABOUR COURT BHILWARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India on 26. 9. 2002 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dtd. 18. 1. 2001 (Annex. 1) by which application filed by the petitioner for perrnitting it to be represented by a lawyer was rejected and the order dtd. 6. 9. 2001 (Annex. 2) passed by the learned Labour Court (respondent No. 1) by which a prayer was made that the petitioner-firm be allowed to be represented through Shri J. P. Patodia was rejected, be quashed and set aside.

(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances: That the respondent No. 2 (Rajendra) raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer, Bhilwara alleging therein that he was engaged in March, 1995 as Salesman under the petitioner-firm, but his services were terminated w. e. f. 7. 8. 1998. The conciliation proceedings failed and the matter was referred to the Labour Court (respondent No. 1) for adjudication. On receiving the reference, notices were issued to the parties. ii) Further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner appeared before the respondent No. 1 (labour Court) on 16. 6. 2001 through his counsel and on the same day, an application was filed by the respondent No. 2 (Rajendra) under Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947) and opposed the appearance of the advocate on behalf of the petitioner-firm. The respondent No. 1 (Labour Court) allowed that application filed by the respondent No. 2 (Rajendra) vide order dtd. 18. 1. 2001 (Annex. 1) inter alia holding that since no complex question was involved in the matter, therefore, there was not need to be represented by a lawyer. iii) Further case of the petitioner is that thereafter another application was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner Shri J. P. Patodia before the learned Labour Court (respondent No. 1) stating that since the was a office bearer of Mewar Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Bhilwara, therefore, he was competent to appear and defend the case of the petitioner and thus, the petitioner-firm be allowed to be represented by him. iv) That the respondent No. 1 (Labour Court) vide order dtd. 6. 9. 2001 (annex. 2) dismissed the application filed by the petitioner inter alia holding that since Shri J. P. Patodia was an advocate also, Therefore, the petitioner-firm was not allowed to be represented by Shri Patodia. v) In this writ petition, the orders dtd. 18. 1. 2001 and 6. 9. 2001 (Annex. 1 and 2 respectively) have been challenged.

(3.) CLAUSE (4) of Section 36 of the Act of 1947 is very much clear on the point that before the Labour Court or Tribunal, a party to a dispute may be represented by a legal practitioner with the consent of the other parties and with the leave of the Labour Court or Tribunal, as the case may be.