K K KHADILKAR Vs. INDIAN HUME PIPE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN industrial dispute between the Indian Home Pipe Company Limited and its workmen has been referred by State Government to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 19 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter called "the Act". One Mr. K. S. Mehta sought to represent the Company in the proceedings before the Tribunal but the workmen objected to his appearance on the ground that in view of the restrictive provisions of Section 36 (2) of the Act he could not represent the company. The Tribunal has overruled the objection and being aggrieved thereby, the workmen have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) K. S. Mehta was working as the Personnel Officer of the Company till the 1st of July 1965, when he resigned from that post. He is a lawyer by qualification being a graduate in law, but not being enrolled as an Advocate, he is not, in a true sense, a legal practitioner. He, however, frequently represents the Indian Hume Pipe Company before the Tribunals constituted under the Act, in pursuance of what is clearly a long and uniform practice. He holds a contract with the company under which he receives a monthly payment of Rs, 1,000/- in consideration of the legal advice he tenders to it. In addition, the company pays him fixed fees for appearance in legal proceedings. In this reference, he claims power of attorney executed by it in his favour authorising him, amongst other things to conduct and defend legal proceedings and to represent the company before judicial or quasi-judicial authorities.

(3.) THE power of attorney executed by the company in favour of Mr. Mehta clearly constitutes him its agent to represent it in the dispute before the Industrial Tribunal. The question therefore is not of the construction of that power. The question is whether, despite the power, Mr. Mehta has no right to represent the Company in view of the provisions contained in Section 36 (2) of the Act. Section 36 of the Act which, as its marginal note suggests, deals with the "representation of parties", reads thus: