Back
REKHA BORANA
Ambuja Cements Limited – Appellant
Versus
Hema Ram – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rekha Borana, J.
1. The issue involved in the present petitions being common, they are decided vide this common judgment. The facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13161/2022 are being taken into consideration for the purpose of adjudication.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 29.07.2022 (Annex. 8) passed by learned Industrial Disputes Tribunal cum Labour Court (hereinafter referred as 'the Labour Court') whereby application filed on behalf of the respondent workman under Section 36(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947') has been allowed and that under Section 36(1) filed on behalf of the petitioner Company has been rejected.
3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute on 02.01.2018 and when no settlement was arrived at, the Conciliation Officer issued a certificate under section 2A of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as 'The Act of 1947') to approach the Labour Court for adjudication of the said dispute. The statement of claim was filed by one Mr. Himmat Singh, representative of the workman and after service of notices, vakaltnam
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 prevails over the Advocates Act, requiring express consent and court leave for legal representation in industrial disputes.
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 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....
Consent previously given for legal representation cannot be revoked merely due to a change of advocate, ensuring fair representation in labor disputes.
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....
The court upheld the principle of collective bargaining, ruling that workmen represented by a union cannot independently file claims against their union, ensuring industrial peace and effective repre....
Recognised unions exclusively represent collective disputes under the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, prohibiting unrecognised unions from participation.
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
