Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Atul Pande, filed a writ petition challenging an interlocutory order dated 3 March 2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mumbai. The Labour Court had rejected the petitioner's application under Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D. Act) objecting to the appearance of Shri R.P. Gawde and Shri G.S. Desai as representatives of the respondent employer. Initially, these individuals had appeared as advocates for the respondent, but upon objection, they filed an authority letter showing they were officers of the Indian Employers Association, of which the respondent was a member. The petitioner contended that since they were advocates, they could not represent the employer without leave of the court. The High Court examined Section 36 of the I.D. Act, which allows an officer of an employers' association to represent the employer in proceedings. The court noted that there was no dispute that the representatives were officers of the association, and their authority letter was not challenged. The court held that Section 36 permits such representation, and the fact that the representatives are also advocates does not bar them from appearing as officers of the association. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Paradip Port Trust v. Their Workmen, which held that a lawyer can appear as an officer of a trade union or an employers' association. The court found no merit in the petitioner's objection and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Labour Court's order. The main application under Section 33C(2) filed by the petitioner remains pending before the Labour Court.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Representation of Parties - Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The petitioner challenged an interlocutory order rejecting his application under Section 36 objecting to the appearance of two advocates as officers of the Indian Employers Association. The court held that Section 36 permits an officer of an employers' association to represent the employer, and there is no bar against an advocate appearing in that capacity. The election to appear as an officer of the association does not require leave of the court, and the fact that the representatives are advocates does not deny their right to appear as officers. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an advocate who is also an officer of an employers' association can represent the employer under Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 without obtaining leave of the court.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Labour Court's order dated 3 March 2012. The court held that the representatives, being officers of the Indian Employers Association, are entitled to represent the respondent under Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 without requiring leave of the court.
Law Points
- Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 permits an officer of an employers' association to represent the employer in proceedings
- even if the officer is also an advocate
- no leave of the court is required for such representation
- the capacity as officer of the association is distinct from that of an advocate.
