Writ petition challenging rejection of application to allow petitioner's daughter-in-law, who is an advocate, to represent a proprietorship firm. Court upheld restriction under Section 36 but allowed sons as representatives due to substantial justice.
Petitioner allowed to appear personally or through her sons with proper authorization.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/17TH JYAISHTA 1935
WP(C).No. 3993 of 2005 (A)
PETITIONER:
G.VASANTHA, PROPRIETOR,
M/S.SANTOSH INDUSTRIES, 61/M.G.STREET, THAMARAKULAM KOLLAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
SRI.PAUL JACOB
RESPONDENTS:
R, BY ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY
R,R2 BY ADV. SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. MOHAMMED SHAFI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-062013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX: PETITIONERRS' EXTS:
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF REFERENCE DATED 30-10-2003.
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORISATION ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM 'F' DATED 27/11/2003.
EXT.P3: TRUE CPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 1/1/2004 IN I.D. 62/2003.
EXT.P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 29/1/2004 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXTG.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3/12/2004 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM.
RESPONDENTS EXTS: NIL
ks.
TRUE COPY
P.S. TO JUDGE
K. VINOD CHANDRAN,J.
======================
W.P.(C)No.3993 of 2005
=======================
Dated this the 7th day of June 2013
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is before this Court challenging Ext.P4 order of the Industrial Tribunal by which the prayer to allow the daughter-in-law of the petitioner to represent the petitioner before the Tribunal was rejected. Suffice it to state that the petitioner was the management and the dispute was raised by the Union on behalf of the workmen. When the matter was posted for appearance, the daughter-in-law of the petitioner appeared and produced an authorization letter from the petitioner. It was the contention of the management that it is a proprietorship firm and the firm is a family concern and due to the incapacity of the petitioner, she has to be represented by another person. Hence according to her, she has authorized
2
Wpc 3993/2005
her daughter-in-law. The Union, however, opposed the prayer on the ground that her daughter-in-law was a practising Advocate in the Courts at Kollam. No evidence was adduced.
3
Wpc 3993/2005
family member cannot represent an employer nor is a family concern recognised by law.
Khadilkar v. Indian Hume Pipe Co.((1967(1)LLJ 139),
wherein considering the scope of Section 36(2), it was opined that the said provision is not exhaustive and it is open to the employer to seek to be represented in a proceedings under the Act by a person other than those mentioned in the sub-clauses.
Wpc 3993/2005
4
Tribunal.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE
ks.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a family member can represent an employer in industrial proceedings under Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether an advocate employed by a union can represent the employer without union permission.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Khadilkar v. Indian Hume Pipe Co.Explained¶41
Khadilkar v. Indian Hume Pipe Co. ((1967(1)LLJ 139)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
G. Vasantha
State of Kerala represented by Secretary, Department of Labour
General Secretary, Industrial Complex Labour Union (INTUC)
K. Vinod Chandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
