The main legal point established in the judgment is that parties in an industrial dispute are permitted to engage legal practitioners on their behalf before the Labour Court, subject to certain conditions.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order dated 27.08.2014 passed by the first respondent Labour Court, Chennai in I.A.No.271 of 2013 in I.D.No.35 of 2013 and to quash the same and consequently grant a directions to the first respondent Labour Court to permit the petitioners to engage a legal practitioner of their choice.)

1.This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.08.2014 passed by the first respondent viz., the learned District Judge, I Additional Labour Court, Chennai in I.A.No.271 of 2013 in I.D.No.35 of 2013, thereby restraining the petitioner from engaging legal practitioner in the Industrial Dispute proceedings.

2. The second respondent raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.35 of 2013, challenging the termination order passed by the second petitioner dated 28.01.2010. On 05.03.2013, the petitioners engaged counsel and requested time to file counter. On the said request, the ID was adjourned to 05.04.2013. In the meantime, the second respondent filed an application in I.A.No.271 of 2013 in I.D.No.35 of 2013, objecting the appearance of the legal practitioner under Section 36(4) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1974. Though the petitioners filed detailed counter, the Labour Court allowed the application filed by the second respondent thereby restrained the petitioners from engaging legal practitioner on their behalf before the Labour Court. Hence, the petitioners filed this present Writ Petition with the above said prayer.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that Article 39 A of the Constitution of India provides that the State shall endure to provide free legal assistant to its citizens. Therefore, the reasons quoted by the second respondent are not genuine and he wants to ouster the engagement of a legal practitioner in order to take undue advantage of lack of legal knowledge of the petitioners. In fact, the second respondent has represented through Union leader who regularly appears before the Labour Court forum and he is aware of all legal proceedings which are followed in the Labour Courts.

3.1. He further submitted that another Industrial Dispute raised by the second respondent in I.D.No.63 of 2013 before the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai, in which the petitioners were allowed to engage legal practitioner on their behalf to defend their case in the industrial dispute raised by the second respondent. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2007 (1) LLN 449 in the case of Management, Hindustan Motors Earth Moving Equipment Division Ltd., Vs. Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court and ors.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that he has authorized the leader of Trade Union on his behalf before the Labour Court since the he has no resources to engage any other professional lawyer and unable afford the free of the lawyer. The provision under Section 36(4) of the Industrial Dispute Act is enacted with intention to prevent any party having an unfair advantage of the other. This privilege was given to the labour to prevent the appearance of the opposite side through professional lawyer.

4.1 She further submitted that the second respondent had never given any consent to the petitioners to appear through legal practitioner in this dispute. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner, without consent of the second respondent and also without the leave of the Lobour Court. In support of her contention, she relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 28.10.2015 in the case of National Horticultural Research and Development Foundatation Vs. The Presiding Officer and ors in which, this Court held that any proceedings before the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal a dispute may