Back
1964 Supreme(Pat) 87
PATNA HIGH COURT
H.Mahapatra and Tarkeshwar Nath JJ.
Behar Journals Ltd.
Versus
H.K.Chaudhuri
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 463 of 1964 ;
Decided On : MAY 06, 1964
A company, as an employer, can authorize a shareholder to act on its behalf before the Industrial Tribunal, as long as the authorization is proper and in accordance with the company's governing laws.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 36 - REPRESENTATION BEFORE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - COMPANY AS EMPLOYER - AUTHORIZATION OF SHAREHOLDER TO ACT ON ITS BEHALF - VALIDITY - CIRCUMVENTION OF SECTION 36(4) - APPOINTMENT OF ADVOCATE AS UNION VICE-PRESIDENT - LEGALITY.
Fact of the Case:
The Behar Journals Ltd. Employees Union sought to engage Advocate Ranen Roy to represent them in an industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal. The Management objected, citing Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which prohibits legal representation without the consent of the other party. The Union then appointed Ranen Roy as its Vice-President, claiming that he was now qualified to represent them under Section 36(1)(a) of the Act. The Tribunal allowed Ranen Roy to represent the Union, and the Management challenged this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that there was no evidence to suggest that the appointment of Ranen Roy as Vice-President was an attempt to circumvent Section 36(4) of the Act. It also held that a company, as an employer, can authorize a shareholder to act on its behalf before the Industrial Tribunal, as long as the authorization is proper and in accordance with the company's governing laws.
Issues: 1. Whether the appointment of Ranen Roy as Vice-President of the Union was a circumvention of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. Whether a company, as an employer, can authorize a shareholder to act on its behalf before the Industrial Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that there was no evidence to suggest that the appointment of Ranen Roy as Vice-President was an attempt to circumvent Section 36(4) of the Act. It noted that the appointment was made in accordance with the Union's Constitution and that there was no indication that it was done solely to enable Ranen Roy to represent the Union before the Tribunal. 2. The Court held that a company, as an employer, can authorize a shareholder to act on its behalf before the Industrial Tribunal, as long as the authorization is proper and in accordance with the company's governing laws. It noted that a company cannot physically appear in person before the Tribunal and that it must therefore be allowed to authorize a representative to act on its behalf.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the part of the Tribunal's order that refused permission to Mr. A. K. Tewari to act on behalf of the Behar Journals Ltd. in the reference case pending before the Tribunal. It also held that the Tribunal's order permitting Mr. Ranen Roy to represent the Union need not be interfered with.
H.Mahapatra, J.
1. This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution arises out of orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal Bihar at Patna on the 2nd and 31st of January 1964. By the first order the Tribunal permitted one Mr. Ranen Roy to represent the Behar Journals Ltd. Employees Union and refused permission to one Mr. A. K. Tewari to represent the employer in an industrial dispute between the Management of the Behar Journals Ltd., Patna, and the workmen represented by the Behar Journals Ltd, Employees Union in Reference No. 15 of 1963.
2. The State Government made a reference of the dispute under Industrial Disputes Act on 14th of May 1963. It was received by the Tribunal on the 22nd of May on which date it ordered notices to be given to the parties to file written statements by the 8th June 1963. The Union filed it and after that, the Management filed their written statement on the 17th of August 1963. The hearing date was fixed for the 3rd of September 1963. It was adjourned at one stage and it was fixed for hearing on the 10th of December 1963. A few days before that date, that is, on the 4th of December 1963, the Employees Union made an application asking for adjournment of the case on the ground that Mr. Ranen Ray, Advocate, was to represent them and that he was to be absent in Calcutta in connection with a marriage in his family on the 10th of December. That question was taken up by the Tribunal on the 10th of December 1963. Mr. A. K. Tewari and Mr. B. B. Karan appeared on behalf of the Management and the Union respectively. A rejoinder was filed on behalf of the Management against the prayer for adjournment made by the Union. The case, however, was adjourned by the Tribunal to the 17th of December, but again on the 12th of December the Union filed another application for adjournment in advance, stating therein that as the engagement of a lawyer on their behalf had been opposed by the Management, it would not be possible for them to get ready in the case within a short time so as to be able to meet the challenge of the Management through a lawyer representing them. The Tribunal on that date adjourned the case to the 2nd January 1964.
3. On that day Mr. Ranen Ray represented the Union as the Vice-President of that Union. That was opposed by Mr. A. K. Tewari who appeared on behalf of the Management. Certain papers appear to have been produced before the Tribunal on that date as we find from the order recorded by the Presiding Officer. Under Rule 20 of the Constitution of the Bihar Journals Employees Union Mr. Ranen Roy had been nominated by the President of that Union as Vice-President on the 14th of December 1963 on the acceptance of the resignation of Sri Radha Mohan Prasad Verma who was the Vice-President of the Union before. The Tribunal found that on account of this appointment of Mr. Ranen Roy as Vice-President of the Union, he was qualified to represent the Union under Sec.36(1) (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In that view, the Tribunal permitted Mr. Ranen Roy to represent the Union.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Management, which is the petitioner before us, contends that this part of the order of the Tribunal was illegal inasmuch as the facts and circumstances of the case show that the appointment of Mr. Ranen Ray as Vice-president of the Union was brought about with a view to circumvent the disability of the Union to engage a lawyer without the consent of the other side. Sub-section (4) of Sec.36 of the Industrial Disputes Act (to be referred hereafter as the Act) lays down that before the Tribunal, no party can be represented by a legal practitioner without the consent of the other side. In the present case as the Management had objected to the engagement of Mr. Ranen Ray as an advocate and legal practitioner on behalf of the Workmens Union before the 12th of December 1963 (as it appears from the petition filed by the Union on that date), the Union and Mr. Ranea Roy tried to c
