Back
2015 Supreme(All) 1613
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
V.K. Gupta - Appellant
Vs.
Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal and others - Respondents
Writ-C No. 33434 of 2015
Decided on : 22.12.2015
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the statutory conditions for engaging a lawyer to represent a party before the Tribunal, as laid down in Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in relation to the Advocates Act, 1961 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Advocate - Representation before Tribunal - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10, Section 36(4) - The judgment discusses the Advocates Act, 1961 and its application to the representation of the management before the Tribunal. It highlights the statutory conditions for engaging a lawyer to represent a party before the Tribunal, emphasizing the need for consent of the worker or worker’s union and the leave of the court. The judgment also references relevant case law and constitutional provisions to support the interpretation of the legal framework applied by the court in reaching its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an advocate, challenged the order debarring him from representing the management in an industrial case before the Tribunal. The order was based on the petitioner's failure to fulfill the statutory conditions under Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to fulfill the mandatory conditions laid down under Section 36 of the Act, and therefore, the Tribunal was not in error in debarring him from appearance in the case. The court dismissed the petition with a direction to the Tribunal to complete the proceedings expeditiously.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's right to represent the management before the Tribunal, the statutory conditions under Section 36(4) of the Act, and the alleged violation of the Advocates Act, 1961 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the statutory conditions for engaging a lawyer to represent a party before the Tribunal, as laid down in Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court also considered relevant case law and constitutional provisions to support its findings.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the Tribunal was directed to complete the proceedings expeditiously.
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 management of 508 Army Base Workshop for recovering the wages already paid to the office bearers of the Union as per annexure 1 against special casual leave already granted is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman/union, is entitled to and to what extent?'
5. On reference Industrial Case No.16 of 2014, C.D. Pal, General Secretary, Mazdoor Union v. Commandant 508 Army Base Workshop, Fort, Allahabad was registered. In the said case the Management of the Army Base Workshop on 07.04.2014 authorised the petitioner V.K. Gupta, Advocate (Labour Law Adviser) and Sri A.K. Gupta, Advocate to appear on its behalf vide letter dated 20.03.2014. An application without affidavit was moved on behalf of the Workers Union on 08.04.2015 that the petitioner V.K. Gupta, who is an advocate be restrained from appearing on behalf of Management.
6. The application was opposed by the Management of the Army Base Workshop by filing reply dated 13.05.2015 contending that the petitioner had been representing it in the proceedings for the last one year and cannot be debarred at this stage. The application moved by the Workers Union is not supported by an affidavit and the objection to the petitioner’s appearance raised in the application is highly belated. There is no legal bar for a lawyer to appear as a representative of the Management.
7. It is on consideration of the above objections that the application of the Workers Union has been allowed in part by the impugned order dated 13.05.2015.
8. I have heard Sri Arun Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.D. Pal, Secretary General of the Workers Union appearing in person.
9. Sri Gupta argued that the order impugned violates the petitioner’s statutory and fundamental right contained in Sections 29 and 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India respectively and that as Section 36(4) of the Act has been declared to be ultra vires he cannot be debarred from appearing in the above case.
10. Article 246 of the Constitution of India provides that the matters enumerated in List I (Union list) of the Seventh Schedule are legislable exclusively by the Parliament, those in List II (concurrent list) by the Parliament as well as State legislature and those in List III (State list) exclusively by the legislatures of the States.
11. Entry 77 of List I provides for the enactment of law by the Parliament in respect of constitution, organisation, jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court (including that of contempt), the fees chargeable and the persons entitle to practise before the Supreme Court.
12. Similarly, Entry 78 of List I provides for the matters in connection with the constitution, organisation (including vacations) of the High Courts except provisions as to t
