MANAGER ATLANTA INFRASTRUCTURE Vs. JUDGE LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.01.2008, passed by the Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Udaipur, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.D. Act') was rejected.

(2.) THE petitioner has come with a case that one Mahendra Singh Chauhan and Associates was authorized to represent their case before the Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Udaipur and, for that purposes, an application under Section 36 of the I.D. Act was filed with the averment that said Shri Mahendra Singh Chauhan, being an officer of association/federation of employers, thus, is entitled to represent, in view of the provisions of Section 36(2) of the I.D. Act.

(3.) THE learned Court -below considered the issue as to whether Mahendra Singh Chauhan, advocate, can be treated as an officer of Mewar Chambers of Commerce and Industry or not and considering the facts relevant therein, it was held that Shri Mahendra Singh Chauhan is not an officer, thus, the application under Section 36 of the I.D. Act was rejected. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Mahendra Singh Chauhan was appointed as a legal adviser, not only for Udaipur Chambers of Commerce and Industry, but also Labour adviser for Mewar Chambers of Commerce and Industry. Thus, he was an officer of the association of employers and even federation of association of employers. Thus, he was authorized to represent employer, in view of the provisions of Section 36(2) of the I.D. Act. To substantiate arguments, reference of the of the judgment reported in : (1976)IILLJ409SC Pradip Port Trust v. Their Workmen is made. A further reference of the judgment in the case of Radhey Shyam v. Presiding Officer Labour Court II 2004 I CLR 39 is given, apart from the judgment of this Court reported in Grapes Synthetics Private Limited v. The Judge Labour Court Bhilwara and Anr. In the case of Grapes Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., this Court considered almost the same issue and therein, the writ petition was allowed. In the aforesaid case, one J.P. Patodia, shown to be an officer of Mewar Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Bhilwara, was allowed to represent the case of the employer. The Labour Court earlier dismissed the application moved by the employer under Section 36 of the I.D. Act. Shri J.P. Patodia was otherwise a legal practitioner, but he was legal adviser of Mewar Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Bhilwara, which fact has otherwise also borne out from document at Annexure -9 page -53 of the writ petition, where the name of Shir J.P. Patodia has been shown as legal adviser, whereas the name of Shri Mahendra Singh Chauhan has been shown as Labour adviser, therefore, it is submitted that present case is covered by the judgment aforesaid as Annexure -9 was under consideration in the case of Grapes Synthetics (Supra) also.