Back
1956 Supreme(Cal) 79
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sinha
RECKITT AND COLMAN OF INDIA LTD. - Appellant
Versus
JITENDRA NATH MAITRA - Respondent
Matter 197 Of 1955
Decided On : APRIL 27, 1956
The consent of the other party to legal representation before an Industrial Tribunal cannot be revoked or retracted once it has been given.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - SECTION 36 (4) - VALIDITY - RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION - CONSENT OF PARTIES - REVOCATION - DELAY IN MOVING HIGH COURT - AWARD SET ASIDE - REMAND FOR RE-HEARING.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a company, was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for the resolution of disputes between the company and its workmen. The company engaged a law firm and an advocate to represent it before the Tribunal. The union representing the workmen initially did not object to the company's legal representation. However, at a later stage, the union objected, and the Tribunal upheld the objection, preventing the company from being represented by a lawyer.
Finding of the Court:
1. Section 36 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which allows legal representation before an Industrial Tribunal only with the consent of the other parties, is not ultra vires Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to practise any profession. 2. The consent of the other party to legal representation before the Tribunal cannot be revoked or retracted once it has been given. 3. The Tribunal's order preventing the company from being represented by a lawyer at an advanced stage of the proceedings was illegal and prejudicial to the company. 4. The delay in moving the High Court for relief was not such as to disentitle the company from obtaining relief.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 36 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is ultra vires Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. 2. Whether the consent of the other party to legal representation before the Tribunal can be revoked or retracted once it has been given. 3. Whether the Tribunal's order preventing the company from being represented by a lawyer at an advanced stage of the proceedings was legal and justified. 4. Whether the delay in moving the High Court for relief disentitled the company from obtaining relief.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The right to practise law is not an absolute right but is subject to limitations imposed by law. Section 36 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is a valid law that regulates the procedure before Industrial Tribunals and does not infringe the fundamental right to practise any profession. 2. The consent of the other party to legal representation before the Tribunal is a condition precedent for such representation. Once consent is given, it cannot be revoked or retracted, as this would lead to uncertainty and prejudice to the party relying on the consent. 3. The Tribunal's order preventing the company from being represented by a lawyer at an advanced stage of the proceedings was illegal and prejudicial to the company. The Tribunal had initially allowed the company to be represented by a lawyer, and the union's subsequent objection and the Tribunal's decision to uphold the objection were arbitrary and unreasonable. 4. The delay in moving the High Court for relief was not such as to disentitle the company from obtaining relief. The company had taken steps to move the High Court as soon as it realized that it would not be allowed to be represented by a lawyer, and the delay was not deliberate or intended to prejudice the proceedings.
Final Decision: The rule issued by the High Court was made absolute, and the award of the Industrial Tribunal and its publication were set aside and quashed. A writ in the nature of certiorari was issued for this purpose, and a writ in the nature of mandamus and prohibition was issued restraining the respondents from giving effect to the award. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for re-hearing according to law.
( 1 ) THE facts in this case are briefly as follows : The first petitioner in this case is Reckitt and Colman of India Limited a company incorporated in India having its factories where it employs workmen. By an order dated 2-6-1954 the Government of West Bengal referred to the respondent 1 the 3rd Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta certain disputes between the company and its workmen represented by the union, namely, the Reckitt and Colman Workers' Union. A copy of the order of reference is annexed to the petition and marked with the letter 'a'. The proceedings before the respondent 1 commenced on 8-6-1954. A copy of the order sheet of proceedings before him up to 30-3-1954 is annexed to the petition and marked with the letter 'b'. For the purposes of this application it will be necessary to refer also to the subsequent order sheet a copy whereof has been produced at the hearing. I direct that the said copy be marked as an exhibit and also kept on the record. It appears from the order sheet that the proceedings went on as follows : On 8-5-1354 the order was received by the Tribunal and notice was issued. On 25-C-1954 Sri J. K. Ghose appeared for the company and prayed for time which was granted. What happened was that the company engaged the services of Messrs. Orr Dignam and Co. a well-known firm of solicitors in Calcutta, and Sri Ghose an advocate was employed by the said firm and was instructed by the solicitors to represent the company at the hearing. On 10-7-1954 it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the company had authorised Messrs. Orr Dignam and Co. to represent them, and the Tribunal gave a direction that the other side should be informed of this. Subsequent to this direction the matter came up before the Tribunal on various occasions, and one or other party appeared and filed pleadings, obtained adjournments and so forth.
( 2 ) NEXT we come to the order made on 11-3-1955. The order sheet states as follows :"parties present : Shii P. P. Jinwalla, Counsel with Sri N. K. Raha, Advocate, appears for the company. Sri Ram Sau appears for the Union. The company filed a petition under Section 21 of I. D. Act to treat the matter contained in the balance-sheet as confidential. Case opened at great length and perused the balance-sheet. The Union filed a petition for directing the company to produce account books relating to certain items contained in the balance-sheet. The company opposes. The Union is to apply according to law. After hearing the parties a suggestion is made to them to effect an amicable settlement of the dispute. Parties are willing to do so and pay for time to get necessary approval. The case is accordingly adjourned to 30-3-55. "
( 3 ) IT will, therefore, appear from the order sheet itself that the hearing of the case had actually started and in fact it was "opened at great length". The Tribunal then perused the balance-sheet and subsequently there was a talk of amicable settlement and the case was adjourned. No objection was taken to the appearance of lawyers for the company. On 30-3-1955 the matter again appeared before the Tribunal and the Tribunal was informed that the compromise could not be effected and the matter was adjourned till 2-6-1955 for hearing. It appears, however, that the matter was again adjourned from time to time. On 5-9-1955 the President of the Trade Union filed a petition objecting to the representation of the company by a legal practitioner. This objection was conveyed to the company. On 30-9-1955 the matter came up before the Tribunal and the Union renewed its objection. On that day, the Tribunal upheld the objection. It appears that on that date both parties prayed for time and the matter was adjourned. On 5-10-1955 the order sheet shows that the company was ready but the Union filed a petition for time and the case was again adjourned to the 19th of December. On 19-12-1955 the Union was ready but the company filed a petition for time to move the High Court reg
