SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(MP) 666

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Rusia and Gajendra Singh, JJ.
Aditya Birla Real Estate Ltd. previously known as Century Textiles and Industries Ltd. v. Shramik Janata Sangh & Others
Miscellaneous Petition No. 6022 of 2024 and 6648 of 2024 (Indore); Decided on 13.12.2024

Advocates appeared:
Satish Chandra Bagadiya assisted by Kaustubh Fadnis for petitioner in MP No. 6022/2024; Ravindra Singh Chhabra assisted by Raghav Raj Singh for respondents No. 2 and 3, and for petitioner in MP No. 6648 of 2024; Medha Patkar in person for respondent No. 1.

Headnote:

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -- S. 36 -- right of representation through legal practitioner -- petitioner and respondents No. 2 & 3 cannot be represented through legal practitioner unless respondent No. 1 Labour Union gives consent and leave is granted by Labour Court, Tribunal, National Tribunal or Industrial Tribunal -- however, petitioner is not seeking representation through legal practitioner in capacity of senior advocate -- he is representing petitioner in the capacity of an officer of association of employers -- right to representation u/s. 36 (1) & (2) is unconditional -- not subject to condition laid down u/s. 36(4) -- said two sub-sections are independent and stand by themselves -- person who holds office or is appointed as functionary on executive committee of association of employers, would qualify for being treated as officer of association of employers within the meaning of section 36(2) irrespective of manner in which he came to hold office -- petitioner and respondents are entitled to be represented by officer of association of industries and institution in pending reference -- petitions allowed. (1977) 2 SCC 339 upheld in 2023 SCC Online SC 1707 followed. 2001 SCC Online Bom. 1002 relied on. 2019 SCC Online SC 1343, 2007 II LLJ 704, MANU/P/0344/1971, 2019 SCC Online MP 1788 and ILR (2005) II Del. 876 referred to. [Para 12, 13, 15, 17 & 18

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 && /kkjk 36 && fof/k O;olk;h ds ekè;e ls çfrfuf/kRo dk vf/kdkj && tc rd çR;FkhZ Ø-1 Jfed la?k lgefr ugha nsrk rFkk Je U;k;ky;] vf/kdj.k] jk"Vªh; vf/kdj.k ;k vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k }kjk btktr ugha nh tkrh rc rd ;kph vkSj çR;FkhZx.k Ø- 2 ,oa 3 dk çfrfuf/kRo fofèk O;olk;h ds ek/;e ls ugha fd;k tk ldrk && rFkkfi] ;kph }kjk T;s"B vfèkoäk dh gSfl;r esa fof/k O;olk;h ds ek/;e ls çfrfuf/kRo dh bZIlk ugha dh tk jgh && og ;kph dk çfrfuf/kRo fu;kstdksa ds laxe ds vf/kdkjh dh gSfl;r esa dj jgs gSa && /kkjk 36 ¼1½ ,oa ¼2½ ds v/khu çfrfuf/kRo dk vf/kdkj 'krZghu gS && /kkjk 36¼4½ esa vf/kdfFkr 'krZ ds v/;/khu ugha && mä nksuksa mi/kkjk,¡ Lora= gSa vkSj Lokoyach gSa && tks O;fä fu;kstdksa ds laxe dh dk;Zdkjh lfefr esa in /kkj.k djrk gS ;k mldk —R;dkjh fu;qä gS og] ml jhfr ls fujis{k ftlls mlus in /kkj.k fd;k] /kkjk 36¼2½ ds vFkkaZrxZr fu;kstdksa ds laxe dk vf/kdkjh ekuk tkus ds fy, vgZ gksxk && ;kph vkSj çR;FkhZx.k yafcr funsZ'k esa m|ksxksa vkSj laLFkkvksa ds laxe ds vf/kdkjh }kjk çfrfuf/kRo fd, tkus ds gdnkj gSa && ;kfpdk,¡ eatwjA 2023 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 1707 esa ekU; Bgjk;k x;k ¼1977½ 2 ,llhlh 339 vuqlfjrA 2001 ,llhlh v‚uykbu cacbZ 1002 voyafcrA 2019 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 1343] 2007 ,y,yts 704] euqih- 0344z1971] 2019 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,eih 1788 rFkk vkb,yvkj ¼2005½ fnYyh 876 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 12] 13] 15] 17 ,oa 18

ORDER

Rusia -- 1. Regard being had to the similitude to the controversy involved in the present cases, with the joint request of the parties, both these petitions are finally heard and decided by this common order. Facts are being taken from Misc. Petition No.6022 of 2024.

2. Petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by order dated 16.10.2024 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Indore in case No.11/ID/2024, whereby an application filed under section 36(3) & (4) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as “I.D. Act”) by respondent No.1 has been decided against the petitioners. The respondents No.2 & 3 (in this writ petition) have also challenged the order dated 16.10.2024 as well as the order dated 22.10.2024 by way of Misc. Petition No.6648 of 2024.

3. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act having its registered office at Century Bhawan, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai. Previously the petitioner was known as Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of denim and century yarn from its unit situated at Village and Post Satrati, District Khargone (M.P.). The petitioner has sold its unit to respondents No.2 & 3.

4. The respondent No.1 is a Union registered under the provisions of Trade Unions Act, 1926. The members of the union were employee of Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd., which issued a notice dated 29.6.2021 to them intimating about intention to sale two units to respondents No.2 & 3 and also offered Voluntary Retirement Scheme / Voluntary Separation Scheme to be availed by the workmen within 15 days of the issuance of the notice. The respondent No.1 challenged the said notice by way of Writ Petition No.11885 of 2021, which was disposed of vide order dated 3.8.2021 with a liberty to avail the remedy available under the I.D. Act. The respondent No.1 preferred a Writ Appeal No.746 of 2021 which was dismissed vide order dated 13.9.2021. There after respondent No.1 approached the Labour Commissioner by filing an application under section 10(2) of I.D. Act seeking reference of industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal. Vide order dated 14.12.2021, the Labour Commissioner refused to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. The respondent No.1 challenged the aforesaid order by way of Writ Petition No.28206 of 2021 and vide order dated 13.9.2023, the Writ Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Labour Commissioner to make a reference of dispute in the Industrial Tribunal. Thereafter, Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. filed a Writ Appeal No.1768 of 2023 which came to be dismissed vide order dated 23.1.2024.

5. The Labour Commissioner, Indore vide order dated 1.3.2024 has referred the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.1 to the Industrial Tribunal. Before the Industrial Tribunal, respondent No.1 submitted the statement of claim and the petitioner and respondents No.2 & 3 marked their presence through advocate. The respondent No.1 filed an application under section 36(3) & (4) of I.D. Act objecting the representation of the petitioner and the respondents No.2 & 3 (i.e. petitioners in MP No.6648 of 2024) by the advocates. The petitioner being a second party filed the reply stating that the second party No.1 became a member of the Association of Industries and Institution which is an association of various entities and persons stated to be owing and running the industrial / commercial establishment, factory, institution, etc. The petitioner also filed a resolution of association of industries and institution dated 25.8.2022 disclosing the name of post holders and members, therefore, by virtue of resolution and the provisions of section 36(2) of ID Act, all the members and post holders can represent the company before the Court of law. In support of the aforesaid contention, judgment dated 20.2.2007 passed by the High Court of Madras in case of R. Rajamani v. Presidin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top