IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT, CHIEF JUSTICE &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA ON THE 11^th OF DECEMBER, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 12312 of 2023 LANXESS INDIA PVT. LTD.

Versus GRASIM KRANTIKARI KARMCHARI UNION NAGDA THROUGH GENERAL SECRETARY BHAWANISINGH SHEKHAWAT AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sudeep Bhargava – Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Amit Raj – Advocate for the respondents.

ORDER

Per: Justice Vivek Rusia Petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by order dated 02.05.2023 passed by Chairman, M.P. Industrial Tribunal, Indore, whereby application filed under sub-section (3) and (4) of Section 36 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as “ID Act”) filed by the respondent has been allowed.

Facts of the case in short are as under:

02. The respondents No.1 & 2 raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the State Government for adjudication to the M.P. Industrial Tribunal. Shri Bhawani Singh Shekhawat appeared as Joint Secretary of respondent No.1 to represent the case of workmen i.e.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH respondent No.2. Shri Kuldeep Bhargava Advocate filed a vakalatnama on behalf of second party i.e. petitioner. The respondents No.1 & 2 filed an application under Section 36 (3) & (4) of ID Act objecting the appearance of Shri Kuldeep Bhargava Advocate on behalf of the petitioner. The said application was opposed by the petitioner by submitting that Shri Kuldeep Bhargava and Sudeep Bhargava are Vice President and Joint Secretary, therefore, they can represent by virtue of Section 36(2) of the ID Act. Vide order dated 02.05.2023, the learned Tribunal has allowed the application on the ground that Shri Kuldeep Bhargava in an enrolled advocate, therefore, he cannot represent the employer in the capacity of advocate hence, this petition before this Court.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

03. Objecting the representation of the Lanxess India Private Limited before the Labour Court by an advocate, an application under Section 36(3) of ID Act was filed by the respondents. The said application was opposed by the petitioner. Vide impugned order dated 02.05.2023, the petitioner herein has been restrained to be represented by an advocate.

04. Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order dated 02.05.2023 has been passed without considering the provisions of Section 36(1)(b) of the ID Act.

05. For ready reference, Section 36 of ID Act is reproduced below:

36. Representation of parties.—(1) A workman who is a party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented in any proceeding under this Act by—

(a) [any member of the executive or office bearer] of a registered trade union of which he is a member:

(b) [any member of the executive or other office bearer] of a federation of trade unions to which the trade union referred to in clause (a) is affiliated;

(c) where the worker is not a member of any trade union, by 2 [any member of the executive or other office bearer] of any trade union Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH connected with, or by any other workman employed in the industry in which the worker is employed and authorised in such manner as may be prescribed.

(2) An employer who is a party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented in any proceeding under this Act by—

(a) an officer of an association of employers of which he is a member;

(b) an officer of a federation of association of employers to which the association referred to in clause (a) is affiliated;

(c) where the employer is not a member of any association of employers, by an officer of any association of employers connected with, or by any other employer engaged in, the industry in which the employer is engaged and authorised in such manner as may be prescribed.

(3) No party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner in any conciliation procee