The court upheld the Labour Court order barring the employer's legal practitioner under Section 36(3) ID Act, finding consent and leave lacking. However, it reversed the order allowing the workman's representative, holding that the unregistered trade union could not authorize representation under Section 36(1). Petitions disposed.
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.
[2023:RJ-JD:44499]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13161/2022
Ambuja Cements Limited, Unit Rabriyawas, Post D.L.F., Rabriyawas Tehsil Jaitaran District Pali Rajasthan Through Its Senior Manager (Legal) And Power Of Attorney Holder Mr. Rajvijay Singh Rathore S/o Shri Chhaviraj Singh, Aged 44 Years, R/o C-43 Ambuja Township, Village Rabriyawas, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13175/2022
Ambuja Cements Limited, Unit Rabriyawas, Post D.l.f., Rabraiyawas Tehsil Jaitaran District Pali Rajasthan Through Its Senior Manager (Legal) And Power Of Attorney Holder Mr. Rajvijay Singh Rathore S/o Shri Chhaviraj Singh, Aged 44 Years, R/o C-43, Ambuja Township, Village Rabriyawas, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13180/2022
Ambuja Cements Limited, Unit Rabriyawas, Post D.l.f., Rabraiyawas Tehsil Jaitaran District Pali Rajasthan Through Its Senior Manager (Legal) And Power Of Attorney Holder Mr. Rajvijay Singh Rathore S/o Shri Chhaviraj Singh, Aged 44 Years, R/o C-43, Ambuja Township, Village Rabriyawas, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13280/2022
Ambuja Cements Limited, Unit Rabriyawas, Post D.l.f., Rabriyawas Tehsil Jaitaran District Pali Rajasthan Through Its Senior Manager (Legal) And Post Of Attorney Holder Mr. Rajvijay Singh Rathore S/o Shri Chhaviraj Singh, Aged 44 Years, R/o C- 43, Ambuja Township, Village Rabriyawas, Tehsil Jaitaran,
[2023:RJ-JD:44499]
[CW-13161/2022]
(2 of 23)
District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13314/2022
Ambuja Cement Limited, Unit Rabriyawas, Post D.l.f., Rabriyawas Tehsil Jaitaran District Pali Rajasthan Through Its Senior Manager (Legal) And Power Of Attorney Holder Mr. Rajvijay Singh Rathore S/o Shri Chhaviraj Singh, Aged 44 Years, R/o Ambuja Township, Village Rabriyawas, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13682/2022
M/s Shree Cement Limited, Bangur City Ras District Pali, Rajasthan Through Its Deputy General Manager (Legal Department), Signatory Authority And Power Of Attorney Holder Kamal Kishore Sharma S/o Shri Jai Sita Ram Sharma Age 53 Years Residing At Shree Cement Ltd Andheri Dewari District Ajmer Rajasthan 305901.
----Petitioner
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13692/2022
M/s Shree Cement Limited, Bangur City Ras District Pali, Rajasthan Through Its Deputy General Manager (Legal Department), Signatory Authority And Power Of Attorney Holder Kamal Kishore Sharma S/o Shri Jai Sita Ram Sharma Age 53 Years Residing At Shree Cement Ltd Andheri Dewari Beawar District Ajmer Rajasthan 305901.
----Petitioner
(3 of 23)
[2023:RJ-JD:44499]
[CW-13161/2022]
Via Masuda, Tehsil Beawar, Dist. Ajmer (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15640/2022
Ambuja Cements Limited, Unit Rabriyawas, Post D.l.f., Rabriyawas Tehsil Jaitaran District Pali Rajasthan Through Its Senior Manager (Legal) And Power Of Attorney Holder Mr. Rajvijay Singh Rathore S/o Shri Chhaviraj Singh, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Ambuja Township Village Rabriyawas, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15986/2022
Ambuja Cements Limited, Unit Rabriyawas, Post D.l.f., Rabriyawas Tehsil Jaitaran District Pali Rajasthan Through Its Senior Manager (Legal) And Power Of Attorney Holder Mr. Rajvijay Singh Rathore S/o Shri Chhaviraj Singh, Aged 44 Years, R/o Ambuja Township, Village Rabriyawas, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16006/2022
Ambuja Cements Ltd., Unit Rabriyawas, Post D.l.f., Rabriyawas Tehsi Jaitaran, District Pali Rajasthan Through Its Senior Manager (Legal) And Power Of Attorney Holder Mr. Rajvijay Singh Rathore S/o Shri Chhaviraj Singh, Aged 44 Years, R/o Ambuja Township, Village Rabriyawas, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali, Rajasthan.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16283/2022
(4 of 23)
[2023:RJ-JD:44499]
[CW-13161/2022]
Rabriyawas Tehsil Jaitaran District Pali Rajasthan Through Its Senior Manager (Legal) And Power Of Attorney Holder Mr. Rajvijay Singh Rathore S/o Shri Chhaviraj Singh, Aged 44 Years, R/o Ambuja Township, Village Rabriyawas, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16337/2022
Ambuja Cements Limited, Unit Rabriyawas, Post D.l.f., Rabriyawas Tehsil Jaitaran District Pali Rajasthan Through Its Senior Manager (Legal) And Power Of Attorney Holder Mr. Rajvijay Singh Rathore S/o Shri Chhaviraj Singh, Aged 44 Years, R/o Ambuja Township, Village Rabriyawas, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18850/2022
Ambuja Cements Limited, Unit Rabriyawas, Post D.l.f., Rabriyawas Tehsil Jaitaran District Pali Rajasthan Through Its Senior Manager (Legal) And Power Of Attorney Holder Mr. Rajvijay Singh Rathore S/o Shri Chhaviraj Singh, Aged 44 Years, R/o Ambuja Township, Village Rabriyawas, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18851/2022
Ambuja Cements Limited, Unit Rabriyawas, Post D.l.., Rabriyawas Tehsil Jaitaran District Pali Rajasthan Through Its Senior Manager (Legal) And Post Of Attorney Holder Mr. Rajvijay Singh Rathore S/o Shri Chhaviraj Singh, Aged 44 Years, R/o Ambuja Township, Village Rabriyawas, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
(5 of 23)
[2023:RJ-JD:44499]
[CW-13161/2022]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18852/2022
Ambuja Cements Limited, Unit Rabriyawas, Post D.l.f., Rabriyawas Tehsil Jaitaran District Pali Rajasthan Through Its Senior Manager (Legal) And Power Of Attorney Holder Mr. Rajvijay Singh Rathore S/o Shri Chhaviraj Singh, Aged 44 Years, R/o Ambuja Township, Village Rabriyawas, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
Bhagirath Ram Manda S/o Shri Hanuman Ram, Through Organization Minister, Bhartia Cement Mazdoor Sangh, Jodhpur Shambhag, 97, Purusharti Nagar, Pali (Raj.) 306401.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18892/2022
Ambuja Cements Limited, Unit Rabriyawas, Post D.l.f., Rabriyawas Tehsil Jaitaran District Pali Rajasthan Through Its Senior Manager (Legal) And Power Of Attorney Holder Mr. Rajvijay Singh Rathore S/o Shri Chhaviraj Singh, Aged 44 Years, R/o Ambuja Township, Village Rabriyawas, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18894/2022
Ambuja Cements Limited, Unit Rabriyawas, Post D.l.f., Rabriyawas Tehsil Jaitaran District Pali Rajasthan Through Its Senior Manager (Legal) And Power Of Attorney Holder Mr. Rajvijay Singh Rathore S/o Shri Chhaviraj Singh, Aged 44 Years, R/o Ambuja Township, Village Rabriyawas, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18896/2022
(6 of 23)
[2023:RJ-JD:44499]
[CW-13161/2022]
Ambuja Cements Limited, Unit Rabriyawas, Post D.l.f., Rabriyawas Tehsil Jaitaran District Pali Rajasthan Through Its Senior Manager (Legal) And Power Of Attorney Holder Mr. Rajvijay Singh Rathore S/o Shri Chhaviraj Singh, Aged 44 Years, R/o Ambuja Township, Village Rabriyawas, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18903/2022
Ambuja Cements Limited, Unit Rabriyawas, Post D.l.f., Rabriyawas Tehsil Jaitaran District Pali Rajasthan Through Its Senior Manager (Legal) And Power Of Attorney Holder Mr. Rajvijay Singh Rathore S/o Shri Chhaviraj Singh, Aged 44 Years, R/o Ambuja Township, Village Rabriyawas, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18909/2022
Ambuja Cements Limited, Unit Rabriyawas, Post D.l.f., Rabriyawas Tehsil Jaitaran District Pali Rajasthan Through Its Senior Manager (Legal) And Power Of Attorney Holder Mr. Rajvijay Singh Rathore S/o Shri Chhaviraj Singh, Aged 44 Years, R/o Ambuja Township, Village Rabriyawas, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18910/2022
Ambuja Cements Limited, Unit Rabriyawas, Post D.l., Rabriyawas Tehsil Jaitaran District Pali Rajasthan Through Its Senior Manager (Legal) And Post Of Attorney Holder Mr. Rajvijay Singh Rathore S/o Shri Chhaviraj Singh, Aged 44 Years, R/o Ambuja Township, Village Rabriyawas, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
(7 of 23)
[2023:RJ-JD:44499]
[CW-13161/2022]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18956/2022
Ambuja Cements Limited, Unit Rabriyawas, Post D.l., Rabriyawas Tehsil Jaitaran District Pali Rajasthan Through Its Senior Manager (Legal) And Power Of Attorney Holder Mr. Rajvijay Singh Rathore S/o Shri Chhaviraj Singh, Aged 44 Years, R/o Ambuja Township, Village Rabriyawas, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18960/2022
Ambuja Cements Limited, Unit Rabriyawas, Post D.l., Rabriyawas Tehsil Jaitaran District Pali Rajasthan Through Its Senior Manager (Legal) And Post Of Attorney Holder Mr. Rajvijay Singh Rathore S/o Shri Chhaviraj Singh, Aged 44 Years, R/o Ambuja Township, Village Rabriyawas, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18963/2022
Ambuja Cements Limited, Unit Rabriyawas, Post D.l., Rabriyawas Tehsil Jaitaran District Pali Rajasthan Through Its Senior Manager (Legal) And Post Of Attorney Holder Mr. Rajvijay Singh Rathore S/o Shri Chhaviraj Singh, Aged 44 Years, R/o Ambuja Township, Village Rabriyawas, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3023/2023
M/s Shree Cement Limited, Unit Bangur City, Post Rass, District Pali, Rajasthan Through Its Deputy General Manager (Legal Department) Signatory Authority And Power Of Attorney Holder
(8 of 23)
[2023:RJ-JD:44499]
[CW-13161/2022]
Kamal Kishore Sharma S/o Shri Jai Sita Ram Sharma, Age 53 Years Resident Of Shree Cement Ltd., Andheri Dewari, Beawar, District Ajmer, Rajasthan 305901.
----Petitioner
Versus
Sonu Mulchandani S/o Shri Vishnu Ji Mulchandani, R/o House No. 3/104, Third Ward, Housing Board, Pali (Raj.).
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. |
Nitin Ojha |
|---|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. |
Vikram Singh Bhati |
| Mr. | Manvendra Singh |
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Judgment
Reportable
19/12/2023
raised an industrial dispute on 02.01.2018 and when no settlement was arrived at, the Conciliation Officer issued a
[2023:RJ-JD:44499]
[CW-13161/2022]
(9 of 23)
certificate under section 2-A of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as ‘The Act of 1947’) to approach the Labour Court for adjudication of the said dispute. The statement of claim was filed by one Mr. Himmat Singh, representative of the workman and after service of notices, vakaltnama (P/A) dated 21.01.2019 by Advocate Mr. Nitin Ojha was filed on behalf of the employercompany.
The matter then proceeded on for the reply. On 23.02.2020, the authority letter was filed by one Mr. Ashok Trivedi to represent the workman.
(10 of 23)
[2023:RJ-JD:44499]
[CW-13161/2022]
the union was issued by the Registrar of Trade Union, Jaipur. Meaning thereby, the union was registered and hence, Mr. Ashok Trivedi who was appointed as Law Minister/Legal Advisor of the said union, was entitled to represent the workman.
(11 of 23)
[2023:RJ-JD:44499]
[CW-13161/2022]
36(1) as preferred on behalf of the employer. Aggrieved against the said order, the present writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the employer-company.
Court, counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments:
[2023:RJ-JD:44499]
[CW-13161/2022]
(12 of 23)
Advocates Act, 1961 has been notified to come into force with effect from 15.06.2011, the said provision would prevail over the specific provision of 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? Meaning thereby, whether Section 30 of the Advocates Act would prevail over Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and whether the bar provided under Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act would become redundant by virtue of Section 30 of the Advocates Act?
Krupp Industries India Private Limited & Ors. vs. Suresh
Maruti Chougule & Ors. (Writ Petition (Civil)
No.1169/2018) . The Hon’ble Apex Court while answering the reference held as under :-
“We are in agreement with the view adopted in Paradip Port Trust, Paradip’s case (supra). As emphasized, the matter is not to be reviewed from the point of view of the legal practitioner but from the aspect of the employer and workmen who are the principal contestants in an industrial dispute as observed in the aforesaid judgment.
We really find no ground to revisit the well settled position of law which has prevailed for almost half a century.
We answer the reference accordingly.”
“23. Besides, it is also urged by the appellant that under Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, every advocate shall be entitled "as of right" to practise in all courts and before any
(13 of 23)
[2023:RJ-JD:44499]
[CW-13161/2022]
tribunal [Section 30(i) and (ii)]. This right conferred upon the advocates by a later law will be properly safeguarded by reading the word "and" as "or" in Section 36(4), says counsel. We do not fail to see some difference in language in Section 30 (ii) from the provision in Section 14(1) (b) of the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926, relating to the right of advocates to appear before courts and tribunals. For example, under Section 14(1) (b) of the Bar Councils Act, an advocate shall be entitled as of right to practise save as otherwise provided by or under any other law in any courts (other than High Court) and tribunal. There is, however, no reference to “any other law” in Section 30(ii) of the Advocates Act. This need not detain us. We are informed that Section 30 has not yet come into force. Even otherwise, we are not to be trammelled by Section 30 of the Advocates Act for more than one reason. First, the Industrial Disputes Act is a special piece of legislation with the avowed aim of labour welfare and representation before adjudicatory authorities therein has been specifically provided for with a clear object in view. This special Act will prevail over the Advocates Act which is a general piece of legislation with regard to the subjectmatter of appearance of lawyers before all courts, tribunals and other authorities. The Industrial Disputes Act is concerned with representation by legal practitioners under certain conditions only before the authorities mentioned under the Act. Generalia specialibus non derogant. As Maxwell puts it:
Having already given its attention to the particular subject and provided for it, the legislature is reasonably presumed not to intend to alter that special provision by a subsequent general enactment unless that intention be manifested in explicit language or there be something in the nature of the general one making it unlikely that an exception was intended as regards the special Act. In the absence of these conditions, the general statute is read as silently excluding from its operation the cases which have been provided for by the special one. (Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 11th Edition, page 169.)
“24. Second, the matter is not to be viewed from the point of view of legal practitioners but from that of the employer and workmen who are the principal contestants in an industrial dispute.
(14 of 23)
[2023:RJ-JD:44499]
[CW-13161/2022]
It is only when a party engages a legal practitioner as such that the latter is enabled to enter appearance before Courts or tribunals. Here, under the Act, the restriction is upon a party as such and the occasion to consider the right of the legal practitioner may not arise.”
“16. If, however, a legal practitioner is appointed as an officer of a company or corporation and is in their pay and under their control and is not a practising advocate the fact that he was earlier a legal practitioner or has a legal degree will not stand in the way of the company or the corporation being represented by him. Similarly if a legal practitioner is an officer of an association of employers or of a federation of such associations, there is nothing in Section 36(4) to prevent him from appearing before the tribunal under the provisions of Section 36(2) of the Act. Again, an office-bearer of a trade union or a member of its executive, even though he is a legal practitioner, will be entitled to represent the workmen before the tribunal under Section 36(1) in the former capacity. The legal practitioner in the above two cases will appear in the capacity of an officer of the association in the case of an employer and in the capacity of an office-bearer of the union in the case of workmen and not in the capacity of a legal practitioner.
(15 of 23)
[2023:RJ-JD:44499]
[CW-13161/2022]
The fact that a person is a legal practitioner will not affect the position if the qualifications specified in Section 36(1) and Section 36(2) are fulfilled by him.”
[CW-13161/2022]
[2023:RJ-JD:44499] (16 of 23)
case, the application has been filed by Mr. Ashok Trivedi, representative of the respondent-workman and not by the workman himself. Therefore, the application as filed under Section 36(3) of the Act of 1947 by the representative is not maintainable.
36. Representation of parties.- (1) A workman who is a party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented in any proceeding under this Act by--
(b) any member of the executive or other office bearer of a federation of trade unions to which the trade union referred to in clause (a) is affiliated;
(17 of 23)
[2023:RJ-JD:44499]
[CW-13161/2022]
(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 authorized in such manner as may be prescribed.
(3) No party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner in any conciliation proceedings under this Act or in any proceedings before a Court.
(4) In any proceeding before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, a party to a dispute may be represented by a legal practitioner with the consent of the other parties to the proceeding and with the leave of the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be.”
“……… That apart, even assuming for the sake of arguments that when vakalatnama was filed by the lawyer for the Bank and the representative of the workman not objected to that, that itself was not sufficient because Section 36(4) of the Act clearly provides that it should be with the leave of the Tribunal. Unless and until the tribunal grants leave or permission to the Bank to appear through the lawyer, it cannot be presumed that there was a consent. In any case, one can never presume that allowing the advocate to file his vakalatnama for the Bank before it, the
(18 of 23)
[2023:RJ-JD:44499]
[CW-13161/2022]
Tribunal deemed to have granted that leave or permission. There should be such order in writing.”
The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, in the case of Air India Limited vs. Presiding Officer & Ors, FMAT No.1 of
2015 [2015 LAB I.C. 3071] decided on 09.06.2015, has held as
under:
“58. There could be a case where a party may have consented to the other party being represented by a legal practitioner, yet, may not be permitted such representation since the adjudicator has the final say. If he does not grant leave in the exercise of his discretion, it would be the end of the matter. Conversely, even though the adjudicator may consider the desirability of allowing a legal practitioner to represent a party who is willing to engage him in course of deciding the industrial dispute referred to him, leave granted by the adjudicator to the parties to engage legal practitioners in the absence of even implied consent would be contrary to the provisions of section 36(4) of the ID Act. We are thus not persuaded to agree with the view that grant of leave is more decisive than consent, as held in T.K. Varghese (supra), because one condition is not to be read in derogation of the other. That the view expressed in T.K. Varghese (supra) is not good law has been laid down by another Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the decision reported in 2005 (1) Mh LJ 1027 (Chandrakant Ganpatrao Deshkar v. All India Reporter). In view of Paradip Port Trust (supra), it is settled law that both the conditions have to be fulfilled if a legal practitioner is to represent a party before the adjudicator.”
The Court further held:
“66. We, therefore, answer the first two questions by holding that there could be circumstances wherefrom inference of consent by conduct or implied consent may be drawn but leave granted by the adjudicator has to be express or specific on exercise of judicial
(19 of 23)
[2023:RJ-JD:44499]
[CW-13161/2022]
discretion and that such exercise must find reflection in the order-sheet maintained by the adjudicatory authority referred to in subsection (4) of section 36 of the ID Act. The concept of deemed leave is alien to the aim that the relevant provision seeks to achieve and to this extent the decision in Dipak Puri (1986 Lab IC 132 (Cal)) (supra) lays down the law correctly.”
Further, an application under Section 36(3) of the Act of 1947 by the other party is itself sufficient to show that the other party has not consented to the fact of representation of the employer by a legal practitioner.
(20 of 23)
[2023:RJ-JD:44499]
[CW-13161/2022]
(21 of 23)
[2023:RJ-JD:44499]
[CW-13161/2022]
under :
“ “trade union” means a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (16 of 1926)”
In B. Srinivasa Reddy (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court specifically held that under the Act of 1926, unregistered trade union has no manner of right whatsoever, even the rights available under the Act of 1947 have been limited only to those trade unions which are registered under the Act of 1926 by insertion of Clause 2(qq) in the Act of 1947 w.e.f. 21.08.1984 defining a trade union to mean a trade union registered under the Act of 1926.
As held in Calcutta High Court in Calcutta Port Trust Union Vs. Haldia Shore Ship & Transport; (2013) 3 CHN 253 (cal) the trade union which does not register under the Trade Union Act, cannot be treated as the trade union under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 36, which deals with the representation of parties, in clear terms, stipulates that a workman is entitled to be represented in any proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act by any member of the executive or other office bearer of a registered trade union.
The Court in the said matter observed as under :
“The word ‘Registered Trade Union’ is of great significance and can imbibe within it’s contour the Trade Union Register under the Trade Union Act and not otherwise. The said section further takes care of the interest of the workman who is not a member of a Trade Union to be represented by any member of the executive or other office bearer of any Trade Union connected with or by other workmen employed in the industry in which the worker is employed. In any of such
(22 of 23)
[2023:RJ-JD:44499]
[CW-13161/2022]
eventualities, the representation is to be made through a Trade Union Registered under the Trade Union Act and not through any Association or Union which is not recognized under the said Act. ”
(23 of 23)
[2023:RJ-JD:44499]
[CW-13161/2022]
as preferred by the petitioner Company has been rejected by the learned Tribunal, is hereby set aside.
The application as filed by the employer is allowed and it is held that Mr. Ashok Trivedi was not entitled to represent the workman on the date when the power/authority letter was submitted/filed by him.
However, it would be open for the workman as well as the employer to file fresh applications for being represented by a representative in terms of Section 36 of the Act of 1947 and the learned Tribunal would be under an obligation to decide the same strictly in accordance with law.
REKHA BORANA),J
sanjay/vij/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 overrides Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, allowing representation by a legal practitioner without consent or leave?
Whether the workman's representative, Mr. Ashok Trivedi, could represent the workman under Section 36(1) when the trade union was not registered on the date of authorization?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Paradip Port Trust, Paradip vs Their WorkmenFollowed¶14
Paradip Port Trust, Paradip vs Their Workmen; AIR 1977 SC 36 · Who else cites this
Thyssen Krupp Industries India Private Limited & Ors. vs. Suresh Maruti Chougule & Ors.Followed¶12
Thyssen Krupp Industries India Private Limited & Ors. vs. Suresh Maruti Chougule & Ors. (Writ Petition (Civil) No.1169/2018)
Pali Central Cooperative Bank Ltd vs Judge, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, JodhpurRelied on¶20
Pali Central Cooperative Bank Ltd vs Judge, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jodhpur; 2000 (4) WLC 244
Air India Limited vs. Presiding Officer & OrsRelied on¶20
Air India Limited vs. Presiding Officer & Ors, FMAT No.1 of 2015 [2015 LAB I.C. 3071] · Who else cites this
B. Srinivasa Reddy vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employee's Association and Ors.Relied on¶27
B. Srinivasa Reddy vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employee's Association and Ors.; AIR 2006 SC 3106 · Who else cites this
Calcutta Port Trust Union Vs. Haldia Shore Ship & TransportRelied on¶27
Calcutta Port Trust Union Vs. Haldia Shore Ship & Transport; (2013) 3 CHN 253 (cal)
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Ambuja Cements Limited, Unit Rabriyawas
Hema Ram
M/s Shiv Narayan Singh Rathore, Contractor
Rekha Borana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
