LexPARADIP PORT TRUST, PARADIP versus THEIR WORKMEN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
5 37 PARADIP PORT TRUST, PARADIP v. THEIR WORKMEN September 9, 1976 [Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, P. K. GOSWAMI AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.] Industrial Disputes Act 1947-Sec. 36-When legal practitioners can appear before the Tribunal-Whether Secs. 36(1) and 36(2) is controlled bys. 36(4). The appellant is a major port. An Industrial Dispute was raised by the res- pondent workmen with regard to the termination of the services of one of the employees. The dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal under section 10(1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appellant sought to be represented through Shri T. Mishra, Advocate, who was described as "Legal Consultant" of the appellant. Mr. Misra atlmittedly is a practising advocate of the Orissa High Court. An objection was taken by the respondent to the repre- sentation of the appellant by Mr. Misra. The respondents refused to give their consent as required by section 36( 4) of the Act. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the relationship between the appel- lant and Mr. Misra is that of a client and his lawyer and not that of an employer and employee. The Tribunal also held that merely by execution of a power A B c of attorney the restrictions attached to a legal practitioner contained in sub- D section ( 4) by Section 36 cannot be circumvented. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : 1. The Industrial Law in India did not commence with a show of cold shoulder to lawyers. For the first time restriction was imposed in the year 19 50 on the engagement of legal practitioners before the Appellate Tribunal without consent of the parties and leave of the Tribunal. The restrictions on legal representations before the Industrial Courts existed in England also. The act E envisages investigation and settlement of industrial disputes and with that end in view has created various authorities at different levels all independent of one another. It is reasonable to suppose that the presence of legal .practitioners in conciliation may divert attention to technical pleas and will detract from the informality of proceedings impeding smooth and expeditious settlement. Legal practitioners entrusted with their briefs cannot be blamed if they bring forth their legal training and experience to the aid ;md benefit of their clients. But Labour Law operation operates in a field where there are two unequal contestants. The Act, therefore, appears to bi; taking care of the challenge of the situation in which a F weaker party is pitted against the stronger before adjudicating authorities. Under section 36(1) a workman who is a party to a dispute is entitled to be represented in any proceeding under the Act by 3 classes of officers mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of that sub-section. By sub-section (3) a total ban is imposed on representation of a party to a dispute by legal practitioners in any concilia- tion proceedings under the Act or in any proceedings before a Court of enquiry. Under section 36(4) a parfy who desired to be represented by a legal practi- tioner has to take prior consent of the opposite party and leave of the Tribunal. G [539G, H, 540A, E-F, 541H, & 542A] 2. The rules of representation under section 36(1) and (2) are uncondi- tional and are not subject to the conditions: laid down in section 36( 4). [543A] 3. Section 36 deals with the representation of the parties. Neither the Act nor section 36 provides for appearance of the parties themselves when they are individuals or Companies or. Corporations. The Tribunals and Labour Courts being quasi-judicial authorities dealing with the rights affecting the parties can- not adjudicate their disputes in the absence of the parties. It is therefore, incum- H bent on the Tribunals and Labour Courts to afford reasonable opportunity to the parties to appear before them and hear them while adjudicating the industrial disputes. [543B-C] 538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977] 1 S.C.R. A ~ection 36 is no~ exhaustive. It is not intended under the Act that Com- pames and Corporat10ns are confined to representation of their cases only through the offic.ers specified in section 36 (2) of the Act. They can be repre- sente~. by the Dtrector, their own officers. However, they cannot engage legal practtt10ners by means of special power of attorney. [543C, F] B ... c D E F G B . 4. If a }e¥al pr!lctitioner is appointed as an officer of a Company or Corpo- rat10n and is. m their pay and und
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.