PANKAJ MITHAL
V. K. Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal – Respondent
The petitioner is an advocate. He is practicing exclusively before Labour and Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur.
2. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 13.05.2015 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) by which the application of the worker with regard to one of the prayers has been allowed and he has been debarred from representing the management in Industrial Case No.16 of 2014, C.D. Pal, General Secretary Mazdoor Union v. Commandant 508 Army Base Workshop, Fort, Allahabad.
3. The petitioner has been debarred as he is not an officer of the Army Base Workshop and at the same time had neither the consent of the worker or the Worker’s Union nor the leave of the Court to represent the management in the said case.
4. The Ministry of Labour, Government of India referred a dispute regarding recovery of wages alleged to be paid in excess to the office bearers of the Worker’s Union. The said reference dated 21.01.2014 made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) reads as under:
'Whether the action of the
Mohan Madhukar Sudame, Mohan Madhukar Sudame v. State of Maharashtra and others
H.S. Srinivasa Raghavachar etc. v. State of Karnataka and others
Paradip Port Trust, Paradip v. Workmen, (1977) 2 SCC 339
Lingappa Pochanna Appealwar v. State of Maharashtra and another
Prayag Das v. Civil Judge, Bulandshahr
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.