NAV CHANDRA JHA Vs. PESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the petitioner has challenged the order, dated September 5, 2000 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, in Reference Case No. 1 of 2000 whereby the application filed by the petitioner opposing the appearance of a lawyer in the proceeding under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act has been rejected.

(2.) The aforementioned reference case arose out of a reference sent to the Labour Court for adjudication under Section 10(l)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The dispute was "whether termination of service of the concerned workman is justified". Both the petitioner and the management filed their respective written statements and documents in support of their case. On January 29, 2000 the petitioner filed a separate application with a prayer to the effect that the management may not be allowed to be represented by any legal practitioner as he himself represents the case. It appears that on April 17, 2000 an authorisation slip in Form-E under Rule 34 of the Industrial Disputes Rules was filed by the Vice President, Chaibasa Cement Works purportedly authorising three persons namely, Sri K.N, Tiwary, Honorary Secretary, Employers' Association, Jamshedpur, Sri Joydeep Roy, Treasurer, Employers' Association, Jamshedpur and Sri Ranjeet Ghosh, ACC Limited, Jhinkpani, Singhbhum West. The petitioner filed objection on May 17, 2000, opposing the appearance of an advocate on behalf of the management. The Labour Court after hearing the parties rejected the objection petition filed by the petitioner in terms of the impugned order.

(3.) M.A.K.. Sahani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the impugned order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. According to the learned counsel, the impugned order is against the provisions of Clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 36 of the said Act. It is contended that Sri K.N. Tiwary showing himself to be the Honorary Secretary of the Employers' Association, is a practising advocate and therefore, he is not entitled to represent the management in the said reference case. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of R. M. Duraiswamy v. Presiding Officer Labour Court 1998-I-LLJ-176 (Mad) and a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Bhawani Art Handicrafts v. Gulab Singh and others 1999 (2) L.L.N. 1070.