The restriction on the representation of parties by legal practitioners under Section 36(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 applies only to active legal practitioners who appear in their individual capacity.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)

LPA No. 499 of 2019

-----

Engineering Mazdoor Sabha, Tati Silwai, Ranchi through its workmen

represented by Sri Anjani Kumar Pandey, aged about 60 years, son of late

Kripa Nidhan Pandey, at resident of Chutia, PO and PS Chutia, District

Ranchi.

…. .......Appellant

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. M/s Usha Martin Ltd., Tati Silwai, PO & PS Namkom, District Ranchi

through its General Manager of M/s Usha Martin Ltd., Tati Silwai, Ranchi,

PO & PS Namkom, District Ranchi.

… …. Respondents

-------

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

------

For the Appellant

: In-Person

For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III

Ms. Rishi Bharati, AC to AAG-III

------

O R D E R

10^th January 2023

Per, Shree Chandrashekhar,J.

I.A. No. 6493 of 2021

The appellant-in-person has filed this application under section 5

of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 39 days in filing the

present Letters Patent Appeal.

2.

The appellant-in-person has referred the following paragraphs in

support of this application:

“4. That it is stated and submitted that stipulated period

for filing of the L.P.A has been expired on 17.06.2019.

5. That it is stated and submitted that and after losing the

writ petition, petitioner/ appellant who is an organization

has made every efforts to arrange necessary money for

filing of the present memo of appeal before the Hon'ble

High Court, and its took some time and due to it delay

occurred.

6. That it is further stated and submitted that on

24.07.2019 appellant came to Ranchi and consulted to his

Advocate for filing of the case. After discussion, the memo

of appeal was drafted and the same was filed before this

Hon'ble Court on 26.07.2019.”

3.

The learned counsel for the respondent-State has raised no

objection.

4.

In view of the statements made in the interlocutory application,

the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

2 LPA No. 499 of 2019

5.

I.A. No. 6493 of 2021 is, accordingly, allowed.

LPA No. 499 of 2019

6.

The order dated 18^th May 2019 passed in W.P.(L) No. 1036 of

2015 has been challenged by the Engineering Mazdoor Sabha.

7.

Mr. Anjani Kumar Pandey who is appearing in-person on behalf

of the Mazdoor Sabha states that he is representing the appellant in the

present Letters Patent Appeal.

8.

According to the appellant-in-person, in Reference Case No. 3 of

2014 the legal representatives of the Management of M/s Usha Martin

Limited continued to appear in breach of the mandate under sub-section (3)

to section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, ID Act) and the

Award dated 7^th August 2020 has been made. Therefore, outcome of the

present Letters Patent Appeal would have a substantial impact on legality of

the aforesaid Award dated 7^th August 2020.

9.

In the aforesaid background, we have heard the appellant-in-

person who has referred to section 36 of the ID Act to challenge the order

dated 15^th December 2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial

Tribunal, Ranchi, by which the objection taken on behalf of the workmen to

the appearance of Mr. Satish Bakshi and Mr. A.K. Verma on behalf of the

Management of M/s Usha Martin Limited has been rejected by the Industrial

Tribunal, Ranchi.

10.

The submission made at Bar is that considering the very nature

of the disputes which are adjudicated by the Labour Court, Industrial

Tribunal etc. the Legislature has consciously decided not to permit any party

to the dispute to take legal help from a legal practitioner. To substantiate the

objection so taken to the