A.P.RAVANI, R.C.MANKAD - (1.)Petitioner No. 2 who was in service of respondent No. 1 was removed from service. An industrial dispute arising out of the demand made for his reinstatement in service of respondent No. 1 with full back wages was referred for adjudication to the Second Labour Court at Rajkot under sec. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.)The Labour Court permitted S.P. Chag and petitioner No. 1 President and Vice President respectively of Jamnagar Shipping and General Employees Union registered under the Trade Unions Act 1926 to represent workman petitioner No. 2. Respondent No. 1 the employer sought permission of the Labour Court to allow Mr. J.N. Shah a practising Advocate to represent them. However since the petitioners refused to give their consent to the appearance of Mr. J.N. Shah the Labour Court did not grant leave sought for by respondent No. 1. Thereupon an application was made by respondent No. 2 a clerk of Mr. J.N. Shah and Labour Adviser to permit him to represent respondent No. 1. Petitioners objected to the appearance of respondent No. 2 and opposed the application made by him. The Labour Court however by its impugned order dated 3/09/1981 overruled the petitioners objection and allowed respondent No. 2 to represent respondent No. 1. Petitioners have therefore filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the order passed by the Labour Court.
(3.)In his affidavit in reply respondent No. 2 has stated that he is working as a clerk and Labour Adviser. He has stated that he is a clerk of Mr. J.N. Shah who is an Advocate appearing in Labour matters. In paragraph 6 of his affidavit respondent No. 2 has stated:
...I say that whenever appearance of Shri J.N. Shah Advocate is objected to by the Union then in that case I appeared in such matters before the Labour Court as a Labour Adviser and Representative of the Company. I say that the Labour Court has allowed my appearance in such matters.