ACME PRINTING AND CONE MANUFACTURING COMPANY Vs. ITS WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under S. 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act arising out of a demand by the employees against the Acme Printing and Cone Manufacturing Company, Bombay, for payment to all retrenched employees who have been reemployed, at the rate of wages drawn by them prior to their retrenchment, with retrospective effect from the date of their reemployment. Sri Gole, on behalf of the union, says that the union does not consent to appearance of Sri Mahale on behalf of the company. Sri Mahale contends that the word "and" which occurs in S. 36(4) should be read as "or", and even if the union does not consent, the court or tribunal can give leave to a legal practitioner to appear on behalf of the company. He relies on a decision of the Bombay High Court in Alembic Chemical Works Ltd. v. P. D. Vyas [1954 - II L.L.J. 148] and contends that a tribunal's inherent power to allow anybody to represent a party is not affected by S. 36(4). He points out that Tendolkar, J., who decided that case, cited with approval the following extract from the decision of Chagla, C.J., in a previous case [54 Bom. L.R. 285] :

(2.) APART from this, I think that even if the tribunal had such a power, it should not exercise it arbitrarily. It should only permit a party to appear through the legal practitioner in spite of want of consent of the opposite party, when not doing so would result in grave miscarriage of justice. In the present case no such compelling reasons for giving such a permission exist. I therefore, cannot allow Sri Mahale to appear on behalf of the company.