MAHENDRA KUMAR KHATRI Vs. JUDGE LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 3rd December, 1985 Ext, 1 may be quashed and D. K. Parihar, Advocate, may be restrained from putting appearance before the Labour Court.

(2.) THE petitioner was working as a Mistri under the respondent No. 2 and he was paid the salary of work charge Gangman. The respondent No. 2 terminated the services of the Petitioner without any notice and non-compliance with the provisions of Section 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The Government of Rajasthan made a reference to the Labour Court and appointed Shri D. K. Parihar as Advocate to represent the respondent No. 2 before the Labour Court. The petitioner raised an objection under Section 3 6 of the Act on the first date of appearance that Shri D. K. Parihar cannot appear without the consent of the opposite party. Thereafter vide order dated 3rd December, 1985 the Labour Court overruled the objection of the petitioner and permitted Shri D. K. Parihar to represent respondent No. 2. Aggrieved against this order the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Section 36 (4) of the Act, the appearance of the legal professional is not permitted without the consent of the opposite party, thus the Labour Court could not have allowed Shri D. K. Parihar to appear on behalf of the respondent No. 2. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the cases of Paradip Port Trust v. Their workmen 1976 II LLJ. 409 and St. Mary's High School v. Gulam Mohammad and Anr. 1984 Lab. I. C. Noc. 85.