SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, J. - (1.) These three writ petitions are taken up together inasmuch as identical questions are involved. In these three writ applications the orders passed by the learned Judge, Second Labour Court, West Bengal, refusing to permit the company to represent through its learned advocate, are under challenge.
(2.) THE brief facts leading to filing of the writ applications are summarised as under: (a) The workmen concerned made applications under Section 33 -C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for computation of their alleged mandatory benefits before the Second Labour Court. (b) The company appeared in the said proceedings and submitted letters of authority authorising Shri G.S. Sengupta, Learned advocate, to represent the company before the, said Court. (c) In spite of service of notice, none appeared before the Labour Court to object to such representation by learned advocate and as such the said learned advocate was representing the company before the said Court. (d) The workmen concerned, also, appeared through their learned advocates and at no point of time any objection was raised challenging the authority of the said learned advocate to represent the company before the said Court. (e) The company decided to change their erstwhile learned advocate and filed new authorisation in favour of Shri D.K. Ghosh, learned advocate, after obtaining no objection from the erstwhile learned advocate. - - (f) On a subsequent date, however, the workmen raised objections regarding representation through Shri D.K. Ghosh, learned advocate and, ultimately, written statements were filed by the workmen contending that the workmen had objection regarding appearance of the legal practitioner on behalf of the company. (g) The company also, filed a written objection contending that there was no provision under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by which consent or leave to represent through learned advocate once given could be retracted or revoked. It is, further, contended by the company that there is no provision under Sub -section (4) of Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 that in case of change of the lawyer, where consent has already been given, it was necessary to obtain a fresh consent. (h) However, by the orders impugned the learned Judge refused to accept the authorities of representation by the present learned advocate of the company. Being aggrieved the company has come up with these writ applications.
(3.) SECTION 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 runs as under: '(4) In any proceeding before a Labour Court, Tribunal, or National Tribunal, a party to a dispute may be represented by a legal practitioner with the consent of the other parties to the proceeding and with the leave of the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal as the case may be.';