The representation by a legal practitioner in the adjudicator proceeding before the Labour Court is subject to twofold conditions, viz. (i) the consent of the other parties to the proceeding, and (ii) the leave of such Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal or Nationalised Tribunal, as the case may be. Implied consent is not sufficient for the representation of a party by a legal practitioner before the Labour Court.

Soumen Sen, J.

The writ petitioners have challenged Order No. 15 dated January 24, 2013 passed by the Presiding Judge, Second Labour Court, West Bengal allowing the application filed by the workman under Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 objecting the appointment of a legal practitioner to conduct the case of the writ petitioners before the Second Labour Court.

2. The respondent-workman on April 21, 2011 filed an objection under Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 stating that the applicant has remained unemployed from the date of termination of his service with effect from May 18, 2008 and is in penury. The respondent-workman contended that he has not given any consent to the appointment of a legal practitioner to represent the writ petitioners before the Second Labour Court in pending reference. The writ petitioners, thereafter, appeared before the Tribunal through a legal practitioner and claimed to have filed a vakalatnama on August 29, 2011, when the Tribunal presumably recorded that the writ petitioners have filed a letter of authority and fixed September 22, 2011 for filing written statement. The parties were directed to file suggested issues and discover document.

3. The objection filed by the respondent-workman was, thereafter, taken up for consideration on January 24, 2013 and the Presiding Judge, Second Labour Court taking into consideration the facts stated in the objection-petition declined to allow the writ petitioners to be represented in the reference by a legal practitioner.

4. Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, submits that once the Labour Court permits the representation of the writ petitioners on August 29, 2011, it has to be presumed that implied consent has been given by the writ petitioners by not contemporaneously raising an objection at the time of filing vakalatnama by the said legal practitioner on behalf of the writ petitioners. It is submitted that the consent referred to in Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, includes an implied consent and having regard to the fact that the respondent-workman did not raise any objection when such vakalatnama was filed. It has to be presumed that the workman had impliedly given consent to the representation of the writ petitioners by a legal practitioner.

5. Mr. Balaram Patra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-workman, submits that when the Labour Court passed the order on August 29, 2011, the objection of the workman was on record and it cannot be said that the workman has given any consent to the writ petitioners to be represented in the said proceeding by a legal practitioner. It is submitted that the matter would have been different had there been no objection-petition pending under Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the very fact that such an objection was filed prior to the matter being taken up for hearing clearly shows that the workman has consciously taken a decision to oppose any representation by a legal practitioner on behalf of the writ petitioners.

6. Mr. Bhattacharyya has relied upon a decision Baroda Ispat Pvt. Ltd. v. Ramgopal M. Patel & Ors., reported in, 2005 (1) CLR 922 : (2005 Lab IC 89 (Guj)) for the proposition that once consent is given whether expressly or impliedly, the same cannot be withdrawn.

7. In Baroda Ispat M. Patel, (2005 Lab IC 89 (Guj)) (supra), the objection was taken after the vakalatnama was filed by the management and some progress has been made in the proceeding. It was only, thereafter, an objection was raised with regard to the representation of the management by a legal practitioner.

8. In the instant case, it is just the reverse situation. The objection of the private respondent as to the representation by a legal practitioner was very much on record and that remained on record till the impugned order was passed.

9. Moreover, it has been held in Deepak Puri v. Fifth Industrial Tribunal,