A. P. RAVANI, R. C. MANKAD, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER No. 2 who was in service of respondent No. 1 was removed from service. An industrial dispute arising out of the demand made for his reinstatement in service of respondent No. 1 with full back wages was referred for adjudication to the Second Labour Court at Rajkot under sec. 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 2 ) THE Labour Court permitted S. P. Chag and petitioner No. 1 President and Vice President respectively of Jamnagar Shipping and General Employees Union registered under the Trade Unions Act 1926 to represent workman petitioner No. 2. Respondent No. 1 the employer sought permission of the Labour Court to allow Mr. J. N. Shah a practising Advocate to represent them. However since the petitioners refused to give their consent to the appearance of Mr. J. N. Shah the Labour Court did not grant leave sought for by respondent No. 1. Thereupon an application was made by respondent No. 2 a clerk of Mr. J. N. Shah and Labour Adviser to permit him to represent respondent No. 1. Petitioners objected to the appearance of respondent No. 2 and opposed the application made by him. The Labour Court however by its impugned order dated 3/09/1981 overruled the petitioners objection and allowed respondent No. 2 to represent respondent No. 1. Petitioners have therefore filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the order passed by the Labour Court.

( 3 ) IN his affidavit in reply respondent No. 2 has stated that he is working as a clerk and Labour Adviser. He has stated that he is a clerk of Mr. J. N. Shah who is an Advocate appearing in Labour matters. In paragraph 6 of his affidavit respondent No. 2 has stated:. . . I say that whenever appearance of Shri J. N. Shah Advocate is objected to by the Union then in that case I appeared in such matters before the Labour Court as a Labour Adviser and Representative of the Company. I say that the Labour Court has allowed my appearance in such matters.

( 4 ) IN paragraph 10 of his affidavit he has further stated:. . . I say that I have also appeared in several cases pertaining to Labour matters before the Govt. Labour Officer and also before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. I have appeared in several cases in the consideration (conciliation) proceedings before the Labour Officer as well as the Assistant Commissioner of Labour.

( 5 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 has given a list of matters in which he has appeared and further stated in paragraphs 11 and 12:. . . I say that thus I have appeared in several conciliation proceedings and also before labour Court as Authorised Agent and Representative of respondent No. 1-Company I was also allowed to appear in several other matters as shown below. . . . . . I say that under the circumstances it is the practice for me to appear before Labour Court as the authorised agent and representative of respondent No. 1-Company and therefore the order passed by the Labour Court is legal and proper.

( 6 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 is a commerce graduate and he does not possess qualification to practise as an Advocate. It however appears that he has appeared as Labour Adviser and representative of employers in many Labour cases. The statements made in the affidavit of respondent No. 2 clearly establish that though he is not entitled to practise as Advocate or a Legal Practitioner he is practising profession of law.

( 7 ) IT is in the background of the above facts that the question arises whether respondent No. 2 could have been permitted to represent or appear on behalf of respondent No. 1 the employer ? Sec. 36 of the Act which makes provision for representation of parties reads as under:36 (1) A Workman who is a party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented in any proceeding under this Act by (a) any member of the executive or other office bearer of a registered trade union of which he is a member: (b) any member of the execu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document