Back
M. K. THAKKER
Medico Labs Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Gujarat Rajya General Kamdar Mazdoor Panchayat – Respondent
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 fu
Consent previously given for legal representation cannot be revoked merely due to a change of advocate, ensuring fair representation in labor disputes.
The denial of legal representation in Labour Court undermines fair trial rights; courts must interpret Section 36(4) of the ID Act liberally to ensure equality between parties.
The judgment emphasized the need to consider implied consent and award litigation expenses to permit legal representation before Labour Courts under Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947....
The rights of representation under Sections 36(1) and (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act are unconditional and independent of the conditions in Section 36(4).
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 prevails over the Advocates Act, requiring express consent and court leave for legal representation in industrial disputes.
A litigant cannot escape responsibility for proceedings failures by blaming their advocate; vigilance regarding one's rights is essential.
A workman cannot engage an Advocate as a defence representative in a domestic enquiry if the management representative is not legally trained, despite the absence of specific provisions in the Model ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the impact of the Allahabad High Court judgment declaring Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 unconstitutional on the case and th....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
