In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

LPA No. 250 of 2009

in C.W.P. No. 4322 of 2007

Date of Decision: November 13 , 2009

M/s Hygienic Foods Malerkotla Road, Khanna, District Ludhiana.

…Appellant

through

Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate

Versus

Jasbir Singh and others

…Respondent Nos. 1 to 10

through

Mr. S.S. Chauhan, Advocate

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

1.

Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?

Yes

2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the

Digest?

Yes

LPA No. 250 of 2009

Per M.M. KUMAR, J. (for himself, T.S.Thakur, Chief Justice, Kanwaljit

Singh Ahluwalia and Jaswant Singh, JJ.)

The short issue raised in this reference is whether an employer can

be validly represented by a practising advocate enrolled under the Advocates

Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Advocates Act’), in an industrial dispute by

becoming an officer of an association of employers of which such an employer

is a member, or a federation of such associations of employer under Section 36

(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘the ID Act’).

2.

In order to put the controversy in its proper perspective, it would

be appropriate to first notice a few facts. The services of workmen-respondents

were terminated by their employer- Hygienic Foods who are the appellants in

this letters patent appeal. The workmen-respondents raised industrial disputes

regarding termination of their services. The dispute was referred to the Labour

Court, Ludhiana, in the shape of various references. During the pendency of the

proceedings when most of the references were fixed for arguments, an

application was filed on 18.12.2006 on behalf of the workmen-respondents

before the Labour Court raising objection to the appearance of Mr. B.P. Bansal

and his associates for the Hygienic Foods (P-1). The principal plea raised by

placing reliance on Section 36(4) of the ID Act was that the workmen-

respondents did not consent to the appearance of Mr. B.P. Bansal and his

associates for Hygienic Foods being advocates and that they could not be

regarded as ‘officer’ of an association of employer or federation of such an

association of employers within the meaning of Section 36(2)(a) and (b) of the

ID Act. The application was contested by the employer Hygienic Foods by

filing reply (P-2). The Labour Court held that Sarvshri B.P. Bansal, Manoj

2

LPA No. 250 of 2009

Bansal and their associates have been representing the Hygienic Foods in those

industrial disputes since the year 2000/2001 and most of the references were

then fixed for arguments, therefore, there was implied consent by the workmen-

respondents for their appearance to represent Hygienic Foods and the same

could not be withdrawn. The other ground was that the application was filed at

a belated stage. Accordingly, the Labour Court dismissed the application vide

its order dated 19.1.2007 (P-3).

3.

Feeling aggrieved, the workman challenged the order of the Labour

Court, Ludhiana before this Court in C.W.P. No. 4322 of 2007. A learned

Single Judge following the Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the

case of Indrasan Parsad v. Presiding Officer, 2008 (1) S.C.T. 522, held that

the order dated 19.1.2007 (P-3), passed by the Labour Court was not sustainable

because the requirement of Section 36(4) of the ID Act is that appearance of a

practising advocate for the management could be possible only if (a) the

workman has accorded express consent and (b) the leave of the Labour Court

was granted. Learned Single Judge rejected the contention of the employer-

Hygienic Foods that once the advocate is working as an ‘officer’ with his

employer’s association within the meaning of Section 36(2) and no objection

was raised over a long period of time then at the stage of argument, such a plea

woul