Back
1998 Supreme(AP) 529
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.HANUMANTHU
General Manager, National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development - Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 08-10-98
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 36 (2) – Termination of service - Presiding officer refused to permit Advocate the Vice-President of the organization of Management union to represent on behalf of the petitioner – Challenged - SECTION 36 of the Act provides for representation of parties before the tribunals and Labour Courts. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 36 of the Act give corresponding rights of representation to Workman and Employer. The three clauses of sub-section (1) are made to correspond to parallel clauses of sub-section (2) in an effort, perhaps to bring about a sort of parity between the rights of labour and management - officer" and "office" are co-related and basically an "officer, whether he occupies a specific office or not, must be in the relation of an employee or servant of a company, firm or individual who is his employer or master and servant". In that case the question to be considered was whether a power of attorney holder can be called an officer of the executor of the power of attorney. It was pointed out that a power of attorney creates a relationship of principal and agent and not of master and servant - Managements Union as contended by her. She is neither under the pay-roll of the said Union, nor there is any relationship of master and servant between the said Union - She is an independent legal practitioner. Therefore, the contention of the writ petitioner legal practitioner is an officer of the said Union in her capacity as elected Vice-President, cannot be accepted. Hence, there are no merits in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed
( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed seeking a direction more particularly one in the nature writ of mandamus declaring the order passed by the first respondent, namely, the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-I, hyderabad, in I. D. No. 36 of 1997 dated 06-03-1998, refusing to permit ms. Sudha, an Advocate, who is said to be the Vice-President of the organisation of the Management Union, to represent on behalf of the petitioner under Section 36 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
( 2 ) THE facts giving rise for filing of this writ petition are as under; the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, has referred the following dispute under Sections 10 (1) (d) and (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called as the Act ) to the first respondent-Tribunal for adjudication. "whether the action of the Management NABARD, Hyderabad in terminating the services of P. S. Balasubramanyan with effect from 09-12-84 without following tine provisions of Section 25-F under I. D. Act is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
( 3 ) THE said reference has been taken on file as I. D. No. 3 of 1997. After receipt of the notice, the Management filed I. A. No. 102 of 1997 for permission to be represented by an Advocate and that application was opposed by the workman and the same was dismissed. Thereafter, Ms. Sudha a practising advocate filed memo of appearance on behalf of the Management with a certificate of registration of Trade Union by name organisation of management Union, Hyderabad which was said to have been registered under Trade Unions Act on 23-04-1997 and she also filed an authorisation given by the Deputy General Manager (Administration) of NABARD authorising Ms, Sudha to represent the management in the dispute as Vice- president of that Union. The workman filed a counter resisting the memo of appearance filed by Ms. Sudha stating that the Vice-President is not an officer contemplated under Section 36 of the Act and that Union was formed after the dispute arose. The first respondent-Tribunal after hearing both sides and considering the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in A. P. Power Diploma engineers association, Thermal Power Station, Palancha, Khammam vs. A. P. S. E. B. , hyderabad1 held that Ms. Sudha is only an office bearer and not an officer of the Organisation of the Management Union and as such she cannot come within the purview of Section36of the Act and accordingly refused permission to Ms. Sudha to appear on behalf of the Management. Challenging the said order, the Management has come up with this writ petition.
( 4 ) HEARD the learned Counsel Ms. Sudha, representing the writ petitionermanagement and Sri P. S. Balasubramaniyam, the workman-in-person.
( 5 ) MS. Sudha, the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner vehemently contends that she is not an office-bearer of the Management of the Organisation of Management Union as held by the first respondent-Tribunal, but, she is an officer of the said Union and as such she is entitled to represent the management under Section 36 (2) of the Act. The workman in person submitted his argument in support of the impugned order and he also relied on Full bench decision of this Court cited supra.
( 6 ) THE pomt that arises for consideration is whether Ms. Sudha, Advocate being appointed as Vice-President of Organisation of Management Union, hyderabad, which has been registered by the Deputy Registrar, Trade Unions on 23-04-1997 is entitled to represent the Management in the dispute before the first respondent-Tribunal under Section 36 (2) of the Act.
( 7 ) SECTION 36 of the Act provides for representation of parties before the tribunals and Labour Courts. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 36 of the Act give corresponding rights of representation to Workman and Employer. The three clauses of sub-section (1) are made to correspond to parallel clauses of sub-section (2) in an effort, perhaps to bring about a sort of parity
