JUDGMENT - C.S. DHARMADHIKARI, J.:---Writ Petition No. 1011 of 1983 is filed by M/s. Perfect Paper and Steel Converters Pvt. Ltd. and Shri J.G. Ghag, the Labour Adviser praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 3, the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, to frame appropriate regulations providing for the Labour Advisers to appear in the proceedings under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner No. 1 is a Private Limited Company who is respondent in the complaint filed by the Bombay National General Workers' Union before the Industrial Court under the Act on the ground that the Company has indulged in unfair labour practices. The petitioner No. 2 is working as Labour Adviser and appearing in the proceedings under the various Acts pertaining to the Labour and Industrial Practices filed for the last 16 years. It appears from record that the respondent No. 1, Union filed a complaint on 16th November, 1981 against the petitioner No. 1 Company alleging that the Company has indulged in unfair labour practices covered by Item No. 1(a) and 4(s) of Schedule II of the Act. This complaint was resisted by the petitioner No. 1 Company by filing its appearance through representative Shri J.G. Ghag the Labour Adviser, petitioner No. 2. On 21st February, 1983 when the matter came up for hearing the Industrial Court passed an order that Shri Ghag being Labour Adviser cannot appear before the Court in view of the Full Bench decision of the Industrial Court dated 14-1-1983. In complaint U.L.P. No. 277 of 1983 and others.

2. The Original Side Writ Petition No. 357 of 1983 is filed by Mr. Laxman Chintaman Joshi against the order passed by the Full Bench of the Industrial Court holding that the Regulation 11 of the Industrial Court Regulations, 1975 is exhaustive and the appearance of Mr. L.C. Joshi Labour Adviser as representative of the M/s. Industrial Engineering Company Bombay and M/s. Krishna Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Bombay is not lawful. In this writ petition Mr. Joshi has claimed a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the Full Bench dated 14-1-1983 and other consequential reliefs. It is not necessary to reproduce the various averments made in the petition filed by Mr. Joshi since it is an admitted position that Mr. Joshi is now enrolled as an Advocate under the Advocates Act, and therefore, will be entitled to appears before the Industrial Court under Regulation 11. Therefore, the contentions raised by Mr. Joshi in his writ petition have become wholly academic.

3. Before the Industrial Court a question was raised as to whether appearance of Labour Adviser as representative of the party is lawful in view of the provisions of Regulation 11 of the Industrial Courts Regulations, 1975. The Full Bench of the Industrial Court came to the conclusion that the Regulation 11 is exhaustive and since the Labour Advisers are not covered by the said regulation they have no right to represent the parties in the proceedings instituted under the Act. It is this order of the Full Bench which in substance is challenged in these two writ petitions.

4. Mr. Bhatkal the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1011 of 1983 has contended before me that the Full Bench of the Industrial Court committed an error apparent on the face of record in coming to the conclusion that the Regulation 11 is exhaustive. According to Mr. Bhatkal the right of representative granted to a party under the Act is not merely a procedural right but is substantive in nature. The parties are entitled to choose representative of their choice, unless the statute provides otherwise. The Labour Advise is a class well known and well recognised in the field of industrial education and therefore they have a right to represent the parties in the proceedings instituted under the Act. There is no prohibition in the Act which debars the Labour Advisers

Click Here to Read the rest of this document