- (1.) THE petitioner workman is aggrieved by the order dated 9-8-2000 passed by the Presiding Officer of the 2nd Labour Court, Mumbai in Reference (IDA) No. 715 of 1999 in an Interlocutory Application, which was marked as Exh. U-2. The main reference is still pending.
(2.) THE facts are in a very narrow compass. The petitioner was in employment of the respondent company as a clerk and his employment was discontinued by an order of termination dated 8-3-1995. He challenged the propriety and legality of the said order by raising an industrial dispute which was referred by the State Government for adjudication. The Labour Court on receipt of the order of reference issued notices to the respective parties. In response to the aforesaid notice the petitioner appears to have filed his statement of claim on 18-2-2000 justifying his demand for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service on certain grounds with which we are not presently concerned. However, in the statement of claim itself the petitioner has mentioned as under: 6. I say that I am unable to engage an Advocate to fight my case in the Labour Court and therefore I will appear through Mr. S. V. Gole, General Secretary of my Association and I will also oppose the company engaging any Advocate to represent them. " It further appears from the xerox copy of the Roznama relied on by the learned Advocate for the respondent company that on 28-2-2000 the company appeared through its General Manager before the Labour Court and he filed the authority of his Advocate along with an application for adjournment. It also appears that on that day the statement of claim was filed by the workmen, who was present along with his representative. The Labour Court had adjourned the matter for filing of written statement to 3-4-2000. On 3-4-2000 one Shri Padmanabh Shetty, a learned Advocate appeared and filed his reply and affidavit on behalf of the respondent Company. He also filed his written statement and a list of documents on behalf of the company. The workman was present and by consent the matter was adjourned to 19-4-2000. On 16-5-2000 it appears that an application was filed by the workman taking an objection to the appearance of Shri Shetty as an Advocate for the company under section 36 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court adjourned the matter for filing of reply and/or say of the company to the said objection. On the next date 7-7-2000 the respondent company filed its reply and the objection was heard on 28-7-2000. By an order dated 9-8-2000 the Labour Court rejected the application filed by the workman objecting the appearance of Shri Shetty as an Advocate for the company.
(3.) IT is the aforesaid order passed by the Labour Court which is impugned by the petitioner workman under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Ms. Shobhana Gopal, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of section 36 (4) of the Act as no Advocate or a legal practitioner is permitted to appear in any proceedings under the Act without the consent of the other party and without the leave of the authority. According to the submissions of Ms. Gopal the petitioner workman had not given his consent to the respondent company to be represented by Shri Shetty as the legal practitioner and that even the Labour Court had not given leave to such legal practitioner to appear in the proceeding. It was further submitted by the learned Advocate that there was no question of there being an implied consent to the respondent company to be represented by a legal practitioner. Ms. Gopal has relied on the following judgments:. 1976 (II) L. L. J. 409 (S. C ). (Management of Keonjhar Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Workman), 2. 1994 (1) Bom. C. R. 302 : 1994 (I) C. L. R. 223 (Punjabi Ghasitaram Halwai Karachiwala v. Sahadeo Shivram Pawar and others), 3. 1998 (1) Bom. C. R. (O. O. C. J.)528 : 1998 (I) C. L. R. 109 (Sandoz (India) Ltd. v. Association of Chemical Workers and another), 4. 1999 (I) C. L. R. 555 (Prasar Bharati Broadcasting Corporation of India v. Suraj Pal Sharma and another),;