JUDGMENT - (1) An industrial dispute between the Indian Home Pipe Company Limited and its workmen has been referred by State Government to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 19(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter called "the Act". One Mr. K. S. Mehta sought to represent the Company in the proceedings before the Tribunal but the workmen objected to his appearance on the ground that in view of the restrictive provisions of Section 36(2) of the Act he could not represent the company. The Tribunal has overruled the objection and being aggrieved thereby, the workmen have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2) K. S. Mehta was working as the Personnel Officer of the Company till the 1st of July 1965, when he resigned from that post. He is a lawyer by qualification being a graduate in law, but not being enrolled as an Advocate, he is not, in a true sense, a legal practitioner. He, however, frequently represents the Indian Hume Pipe Company before the Tribunals constituted under the Act, in pursuance of what is clearly a long and uniform practice. He holds a contract with the company under which he receives a monthly payment of Rs, 1,000/- in consideration of the legal advice he tenders to it. In addition, the company pays him fixed fees for appearance in legal proceedings. In this reference, he claims power of attorney executed by it in his favour authorising him, amongst other things to conduct and defend legal proceedings and to represent the company before judicial or quasi-judicial authorities.

(3) The power of attorney executed by the company in favour of Mr. Mehta clearly constitutes him its agent to represent it in the dispute before the Industrial Tribunal. The question therefore is not of the construction of that power. The question is whether, despite the power, Mr. Mehta has no right to represent the Company in view of the provisions contained in Section 36(2) of the Act. Section 36 of the Act which, as its marginal note suggests, deals with the "Representation of parties", reads thus:

"36. Representation of parties. - (1) A workman who is a party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented in any proceeding under this Act by-

(a) an officer of a registered trade union of which he is a member;

(b) an officer of a federation of trade unions to which the trade union referred to in Clause (a)is affiliated;

(c) where the worker is not a member of any trade union, by an officer of any trade union connected with, or by any other workman employed in, the industry in which the worker is employed and authorised in such manner as may be prescribed.

(2) An employer who is a party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented in any proceeding under this Act -

(a) an officer of an association of employers of which he is a member,

(b) an officer of a federation of associations of employers to which the association referred to in Clause (a) is affiliated;

(c) where the employer is not a member of any association of employers, by an officer of any association of employers connected with or by any other employer engaged in, the industry in which the employer is engaged and authorised in such manner as may be prescribed.

(3) No party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner in any conciliation proceedings under this Act or in any proceedings before a Court.

(4) In any proceedings before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal a party to a dispute may be represented by a legal practitioner with the consent of the other parties to the proceedings and with the leave of the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be".

It is urged by Mr. Chitale, who appears on behalf of the workmen, that Section 36(2) is exhaustive as regards the right of an employer to be represented in a proceeding under the Act and therefore, only those persons who fall under any of the three clauses of Section 36(2) are entitled to represent an employer in a proceeding under

Click Here to Read the rest of this document