BALAKRUSHNA SAHU Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER G E D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an employee under the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division (opp-party No. 1 ). By an award of the Industrial Tribunal, Orissa in Industrial Dispute Misc. Case No. 104 of 1969, heard along with Industrial Dispute Case No. 73 of 1969, the petitioner was held to be entitled to certain benefits, such as, continuity in service as Gr. 1 Electrician, his reversion being held not legal and justified. As a result of the award, the petitioner was entitled to certain benefits, such as, differential pay between Gr. II and Gr I salary and increment. When in spite of several representations opposite party No. 1 did not pay the differential pay for the period of reversion, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 33 (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act for computation of the amount payable to him before the Labour Court, Orissa. The said case was numbered as Industrial Dispute Case No. 30 of 1971. opposite party No. 1 having entered appearance in the case sought permission from the presiding officer, Labour Court (oppparty No. 2) for engaging the Government Pleader on his behalf. The petitioner who is the secretary of the union of workmen objected to the appearance of the Government advocate in the case, opposite party No. 2, however, overruling the objection of the petitioner by his order dated 16-12-71 allowed the Government Pleader to represent the management in the case. A copy of this order is annexure- 2. The petitioner, therefore, has come up with this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for issue of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari cancelling the impunged order (Annexure-2 ).

(2.) OPPOSITE, party No. 1 in his counter contends that the management in the case being Government Pleader is competent to appear for the management. The Government Pleader is appointed under the Rules called the Orissa Law Officer Rules, 1971; His appointment as such is prescribed under the Rules and his 'term of office and remuneration are defined. His duties have also been prescribed under the Rules. Under Rule 31, he is emitted to T. A. under the Orissa Travelling Allowance Rules as a first class officer of the Stale The District Magistrate and Collector of the district concerned exercise administrative control and supervision on him. The Government Pleader is prohibited to appear against the State. Hence, he being an officer of the State Government has every right to represent the State of Orissa before opposite party No. 2. It is also mentioned in the counter that the petitioner is represented by Mr. S. Misra and Bhagbat Behera who are president and general secretary respectively of the petitioner's union which has been recognised by the employer. Both these persons being practising advocates, the petitioner's objection to the appearance of the Government Pleader on behalf of opposite party No, 1 is not justified.

(3.) SECTION 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides for representation of parties before the Labour Court. So far as a workman is concerned who is a party to a dispute under the provisions of the said section is entitled to be representation in any proceeding under the Act by an officer of a registered trade union of which he is a member or by an officer of a federation of trade unions to which the registered trade union of the workmen is affiliated or where the worker is not a member of any trade union, by an official of any trade union 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. So far the presentation of the employer is concerned, according to the said section, he shall be entitled to be represented by an officer of an association of employers of which he is a member or by an officer of a federation of associations of employees to which the association of the employer is affiliated or 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. The said section prohibits a party to a dispute under the Act to be represented by a legal practitioner unless such representation is with the consent of the other party to the proceeding and with the leave of the Labour Court or Tribunal, It is, therefore, urged that a Government Pleader not being one of the persons entitled to represent the employer cannot appear in the proceeding without the consent of the petitioner. Hence, according to Mr. S. Misra, learned Counsel for petitioner, the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court committed an illegality in allowing opposite party No. 1 to be represented by the Government Pleader by the impugned order (annexure-2), when such representation is objected by the petitioner.