1995 Supreme(AP) 324

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.K.SOMASEKHARA, LINGARAJA RATH, S.R.NAYAK
A.P.Power Diploma Engineers Association - Appellant
Versus
A.P. State Electricity Board - Respondent
Decided On : 07-07-95

An association of employers or federation of associations of employers under Section 36(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, must be exclusively of industrial employers and not a conglomeration of different types of members including individuals.

Headnote:

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 36(2) - ADVOCATES - APPEARANCE BEFORE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS AND LABOUR COURTS - ASSOCIATION OF EMPLOYERS OR FEDERATION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF EMPLOYERS - OFFICERS - INTERPRETATION.

Fact of the Case:

An advocate, Mr. C. V. Mohan Reddy, filed a vakalat along with an application for being permitted to appear for respondent No. 1, a company, before the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, in an industrial dispute case. The application was rejected as the appellant, the workmen's union, did not consent to the appearance of Mr. Mohan Reddy. Thereafter, Mr. Reddy filed an appearance for respondent No. 1 styling himself as Joint Honorary Secretary of respondent No. 2, the Federation of Andhra Pradesh Chambers of Commerce and Industry. An objection filed by the appellant to the appearance of Mr. Mohan Reddy was allowed, and the appearance was not entertained. Respondent No. 1 challenged the order in the High Court, which remanded the matter to the Tribunal to ascertain the status of respondent No. 2 as an association of employers or federation of associations of employers and the nature of the office held by Mr. Mohan Reddy. After remand, the Tribunal held that respondent No. 2 was not an association of employers and Mr. Mohan Reddy was not an officer of it. Respondent No. 1 challenged the order in the High Court, which allowed the petition and set aside the Tribunal's order. The appellant filed an appeal against the High Court's order.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that respondent No. 2 was not an association of employers under Section 36(2)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that Mr. Mohan Reddy was not an officer of respondent No. 2 and could not claim the right to represent a member of the Federation in a case before the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court. The Court also held that Section 36(4) of the Act, which requires the consent of the other parties to the representation of a party through a lawyer in a proceeding before the Labour Court, Tribunal, or the National Tribunal, was constitutionally valid.

Issues: 1. Whether respondent No. 2 was an association of employers under Section 36(2)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 2. Whether Mr. Mohan Reddy was an officer of respondent No. 2 and could claim the right to represent a member of the Federation in a case before the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court? 3. Whether Section 36(4) of the Act, which requires the consent of the other parties to the representation of a party through a lawyer in a proceeding before the Labour Court, Tribunal, or the National Tribunal, was constitutionally valid?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that respondent No. 2 was not an association of employers under Section 36(2)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, because its membership consisted of not only employers but also individuals and others, i.e., non-employers. The Court found that the eligibility criteria for membership in respondent No. 2 were not limited to employers, and that even advocates could become members if they were engaged in trade, commerce, industry, or other mercantile pursuits or if the Federation found their engagement or connection with law to be useful to it. 2. The Court held that Mr. Mohan Reddy was not an officer of respondent No. 2 because he was not a practicing advocate, he was not in the pay and under the control of respondent No. 2, and he was not responsible for his actions and conduct to respondent No. 2. The Court found that the designation of Mr. Mohan Reddy as Honorary Secretary of respondent No. 2 was an attempt to overcome the provisions of Section 36(4) of the Act and to white-wash the relationship between Mr. Mohan Reddy and respondent No. 2 as one authorized under another provision of the statute. 3. The Court held that Section 36(4) of the Act was constitutionally valid. The Court found that the provision was justified in view of the need to protect the interests of the weaker sections of society and to prevent the exploitation of workers by unscrupulous employers. The Court also found that the provision was not arbitrary or discriminatory, as it applied equally to all parties in industrial disputes.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the order of the Tribunal was restored.