The main legal point established in the judgment is the permissive nature of S. 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, allowing for other appropriate modes of representation, and the authority of a limited liability company to appoint a representative based on its constitution and functioning as provided in the memorandum and articles of association.

N. SREENIVASA RAU, J.

( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition arises from an industrial dispute referred by the Government of Mysore to the Labour Court, Bangalore. The dispute purported to be between a limited liability company known as the Printers (Mysore) Private, Ltd. , and the workmen employed by that company. It related to the claims of Respondent 2 Pothan Joseph, whose services as the editor of a newspaper run by the company, viz. , 'deccan Herald', were alleged to have been illegally terminated.

( 2 ) THE Court posted the case to 4-11-58 on which date the Secretary of the Company, K. N. Nettakallappa, appeared. After two more dates of hearing when the statement of claim and the counter to it were filed, the case was adjourned to 20-12-58 for the filing of a rejoinder by the. I party. On that day, i. e. , 20-12-58 the II Party, i. E. , the Management (Company) sent an assistant Accountant in that employment to represent the Company. The I Party objected to such representation. The Court observed that the Assistant Accountant had not filed any letter of authorisation and that one opportunity would be given to II Party (Management) to be present in person or through a competent representative and adjourned the case to 30-12-1958. On that day issues were framed. The question of II Party's representation does not appear to have come up for consideration. On the next date of hearing i. e. , 19-1-59 both the parties were granted an adjournment to 27-1-59 for filing documents and for arguments regarding the question of representation. On the latter date, arguments were heard and orders were passed by the Court holding that the Assistant Accountant G. S. Rama Rao could not be allowed to represent the management and calling upon the Management to engage some other persons to represent it. The order is challenged on various grounds in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution.

( 3 ) IN this Court, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, and Pothan Joseph were originally implemented as Respondents 1 and 2. After respondent 2 appeared his counsel represented that the opposite party before the Labour Court was the Mysore State Journalists' Association representing the work men of Printers (Mysore) Private, Ltd. , and that the writ petition was defective as the Association had not been impleaded. The Petitioner's Counsel stated that he would file an application for impleading the association. Such an application was filed on the next day. In the affidavit in support of the application it was stated as follows: "the Management have contended, inter alia, that the reference by the Government is invalid and is without jurisdiction because the claim in question is a personal and individual claim of the second Respondent and that the same has not been sponsored by the Employees' Association, according to the Management, it is not an industrial dispute in law which could be referred for adjudication under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. . . The said question forms the subject matter of one of the issues in the case. However, without prejudice to the contention of the management in regard to the validity and competence of their reference for the reasons mentioned above, in view of the objection raised by the second Respondent herein regarding the parties to be impleaded in these proceedings, the Petitioner herein begs leave of this Hon'ble court to implead workmen of the Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. , represented by the Mysore state Journalists" Association as a party to these proceedings. " The supplemental party was notified and on 16-4-59 Sri. K. Subba Rao appearing for the Mysore State Journalists'

Association stated that his client had no objection to be impleaded as a respondent. Accordingly, the Petitioner's application to implead the Association was allowed. The reference by the government to the Labour Court was in respect of an industrial dispute purporting to be between the workmen and the management of Print

Click Here to Read the rest of this document