S. S. BYAS, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of INdia, the question involved relates to the representation of an employer in an INdustrial Dispute pending adjudication before a Labour Court.
(2.) THE respondent was in service of the petitioner and his services were terminated. THE matter took the shape of an Industrial Dispute. THE State Government by their notification No. 859/82 dated January 18, 1983 referred the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). THE workmen authorised the Rajasthan Trade Union Congress to represent him in the said proceeding. THE petitioner authorised Shri D. K. Parihar to represent it and submitted the authority of representation in the prescribed form under rule 36 of the Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. Shri Parihar was described therein as the Honorary Additional Secretary, Jodhpur Industries Association, Jodhpur. An objection was taken by the Union that since the petitioner was not a member of the aforesaid Association. Shri Parihar could not represent the petitioner. THE learned Judge of the Labour Court upheld the objection and by his impugned order dated May 6, 1983 declared that Shri Parihar was not authorised to represent the petitioner. This petitioner prays for quashing the said order. I have heard Shri D. K. Parihar appearing for the petitioner at length. It was conteded that the approach of the learned Judge was wholly erroneous and unsustainable in law. He mainly relied upon the observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Paradip Port Trust, Paradip v. Their Workmen (1), In my opinion, the law laid down in this authority is not at all helpful to the petitioner. Rather it speaks heavily against it. Section 36 (2) of the Act lays down the mode of representation of an employer in any proceeding under it. It reads as under:- "36. Representation of parties:- (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (c ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) An employer who is a party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented in any proceeding under this Act- by- (a) an officer of an association of employers of which he is a member; (b) an officer of a federation of associations of employers to which the association referred to in clause (a) is affiliated; (c) 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. " Now nowhere, it was alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition or before the Labour Court that its case of representation is covered by any of the provisions contained in sub-section (2 ). It was not avarred that the petitioner is a member of Jodhpur Industries Association, Jodhpur, so as to bring the case with the four corners of sub-clause (a ). So also, no averments were made to attract the provisions of sub-clauses (b) and (c ). In absence of necessary averments to cover the representation by any of the codes spelt out in sub-section (2), the employer can not be allowed to be represented by an office bearer of any association of employers with which it has no affiliation or of which it is not a member. It in trun that section 36 of the Act is not the last word on the question of representation of a party in a proceeding under the Act. It was held In Paradip Port Trust's case (supra) that section 36 of the Act is not exhaustive but only supplemental to any other lawful made of representation of parties. But then, the other lawful mode must be disclosed by the employer to authorise a person to represent him in the proceeding. The petitioner is silent on any other lawful mode of representation. Admittedly, Shri Parihar is a legal practitioner. In that capacity, he is not entitled to represent the petitioner unless consented to by the workmen and leave has been secured of the court or tribunal as the case may be. If Shri Parihar was an office bearer in the management of the petitioner, probably the matter would have taken another shape and the difficulty would not have then arisen of the representation through him- I find no illegality in the impugned order of the Labour Court, which may require correction.
(3.) THE writ petition is, consequently, dismissed in limine without calling upon the respondent for hearing. .;