SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(SC) 2232

L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA
Thyssen Krupp Industries India Private – Appellant
Versus
Suresh Maruti Chougule – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Jamshed P.cama,Sr., Advocate, Mr. Soumik Ghosal, Advocate, Mr. Mayan Prasad, Advocate, Ms. Suruchi, Advocate, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate, Mr. R.Y.Joshi, Advocate, Mr. Varun Joshi,Advocate, Ms. Shruti P, Advocate, Mr. C.U.Singh,Sr. Advocate, 10 Mr. Vinay Navare,Sr. Advocate, Ms. Gwen Kartika, Advocate, Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Madhavi Divan,ASG Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Advocate, Mr. Sachin Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Advocate, Mr. Vibhu Shanker Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, Advocate, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate, Mr. C.U.Singh,Sr. Advocate, Ms. Nutan R. Patankar, Advocate, Mr. Nitin S.Tambwekar, Advocate, Mr. Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, Advocate, Mr. B.H. Marlapalle, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Amol B. Karande, Advocate, Mr. Vijay S. Khamkar, Advocate, Mr. Pulkit Tyagi, Advocate, Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Advocate, Mr. Amritesh Raj, Advocate, Mr. Nitesh Ranjan, Advocate, Mr. Piyush Singh, Advocate, Mr. Vaibhav Shrivastava, Advocate, Mr. Sashank Saxena, Advocate, For State of Maharashtra Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate, Mr. Anoop Kandari, Advocate, for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 12632 of 2018 and 27440 of 2018.

2. The writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('ID Act') was dismissed by the High Court, aggrieved by which the above appeal is filed. The High Court relied upon a judgment of this Court in Paradip Port Trust, Paradip versus Their Workmen [(1977) 2 SCC 339] to hold that Section 36(4) of the ID Act has been interpreted by this Court. The High Court was also of the opinion that Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 which was relied upon by the appellant was also taken into consideration by this Court.

3. Writ Petition (Civil) 1169 of 2018 is filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India assailing the vires of Section 36(4) of the ID Act. Civil Appeal No. 6587 of 2019 is filed against the order of the Labour Court dismissing the application filed by the appellant seeking permission to engage an advocate.

4. After hearing the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in the two appeals and the petitioner in the writ petition, the learned Additional Solicitor General, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Bar Council of Indi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top