IMPORTANT POINT
Consent previously given for legal representation cannot be revoked merely due to a change of advocate, ensuring fair representation in labor disputes.

JUDGMENT :

M. K. Thakker, J.

1. Though notice was served, no one has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 i.e. Gujarat Rajya General Kamdar Mazdoor Panchayat. Learned advocate Ms.Yogini Parikh states at bar that though Vakalatnama was filed only on behalf of respondent No.2, the Registry, by mistake has shown appearance on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2 both, however, respondent No.1 remained unrepresented before this Court.

2. This petition is filed under Article 226, 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the learned labour court, Ahmedabad in reference LCAD No.03 of 2003 dated 02.05.2019 passed below Exh.38 and 39 by which the application preferred by the present petitioner-employer seeking permission to represent the case through an Advocate and the application demanding certain documents from the respondent Union came to be rejected.

3. It is the case of the present petitioner that dispute came to be raised by the respondent No.1-Union alleging that petitioners have terminated the service of the workers shown in Appendix-A with effect from 09.04.2001 and therefore, request was made to grant relief of reinstatement alongwith continuity of services and full back wages. The Union has not been represented by any Advocate and it was filed through the Union leader. It is further case of the petitioner that on 04.04.2003, the authority was filed on behalf of the petitioner of learned advocate Mr.Anil.S.Parikh as an authorized person was accepted by the learned labour court and on the same the endorsement was also made by the Union with regard to no objection. Thereafter, said advocate has filed pursis seeking permission to retire from the case, which was granted by the learned labour court and in the place of Mr.Parikh one Mr.R.K.Desai has filed the Vakalatnama on 22.10.2013 before the learned labour court. The appearance of learned advocate Mr.Desai was objected by the Union, therefore, application was filed seeking permission to represent the case through the union as well as seeking certain documents including the registration of the Union and the reasons for objecting the appearance of the advocate. It is the case of the petitioner that as per Rule 26, authorization has to be given as per Form-F wherein, the signature of the person nominating the representative is must. In absence of the same, it cannot be said that workers have authorized the Union to represent the case in the present case as per the case of the petitioner, same was not fulfilled and therefore, certain documents were demanded by the learned advocate. Learned labour court by an impugned order has rejected both the application below Exh.38 and 39, on the ground that as per section 36 (4) of the ID Act, the consent of the other side is must and only after getting the permission of the court, the advocate can appear to represent the case. The said order is subject matter of challenge before this Court.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Songara for the petitioner and learned advocate Ms.Yogini Parikh for the respondent-contractor and respondent No.1-Union who is the main contesting remains unrepresented.

4.1. Learned advocate Mr.Songara submits that initially the case of the present petitioner was represented by the advocate Mr.Parikh. At that point of time, initially objection on appearance was raised but subsequently on 06.11.2003 consent was given for the appearance of learned advocate Mr.Parikh by the Union to represent the case before the learned labour court on behalf of the petitioner-employer. Learned advocate Mr.Songara submits that on filing the retirement pursis another advocate has appeared before the court, however, at that point of time, the objections were raised by the Union with regard to the appearance. Learned advocate Mr.Songara submits that once the consent was given, merely changing of an advocate would not give the right to the Union to revoke his consent. Learned advocate Mr.Songara has relied on the decision rendered by