Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a company engaged in manufacturing, dismissed the respondent workman for misconduct after due process in August 2015. The workman raised an industrial dispute, and conciliation failed. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Pune, as Reference IDA No.121 of 2016. The workman filed a statement of claim and an objection under Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, against the employer engaging a legal practitioner. The Labour Court, by order dated 15 February 2017, sustained the objection, holding that the law does not permit engaging an advocate without the consent of the opposite party, and since the workman was conducting the reference himself, the employer could not appoint an advocate. Aggrieved, the employer filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act as ultra vires Article 14 and Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and seeking quashing of the Labour Court order. The petitioner contended that Section 30 of the Advocates Act, which came into force on 15 June 2011, being a subsequent special legislation, overrides the restriction in the Industrial Disputes Act and that its officers are not well-versed in law, necessitating legal assistance. The respondents, including the workman and the Union of India, opposed the petition. The High Court reserved judgment on 27 November 2017 and pronounced it on 1 March 2018; however, the provided extract does not contain the final decision or reasoning of the court.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes - Legal Representation - Section 36(4) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 30 Advocates Act, 1961 - Labour Court restrained employer company from engaging an advocate in a reference, holding that Section 36(4) requires consent of opposite party and workman appearing in person objected - Constitutional validity of Section 36(4) challenged as infringing Article 14 and conflicting with Section 30 of Advocates Act which permits advocates to practice (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India and Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961; Whether the Labour Court order dated 15.02.2017 refusing employer permission to engage an advocate is legally valid
Law Points
- Right to legal representation in industrial disputes
- Restrictions under Section 36(4) of Industrial Disputes Act require consent of opposite party
- Section 30 of Advocates Act gives advocates right to practice
- Conflict between central enactments
- Constitutional validity of statutory restriction on legal representation
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (03) 30
Writ Petition No. 7755 of 2017 and Civil Application Stamp No. 33077 of 2017
S.C. Dharmadhikari, Smt. Bharati H. Dangre
Mr. K. M. Naik, Mr. Anil C. Singh, Mr. A. A. Kumbhokoni, Mr. Sanjay Kulkarni, Mr. Amitkumar Damodar Sale, Mr. Sanjay Singhavi
Thyssen Krupp Industries India Private Limited
Suresh Maruti Chougule, Union of India, Bar Council of India, Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa, State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 challenging constitutional validity of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and seeking quashing of Labour Court order regarding legal representation in industrial dispute
Remedy Sought
Declaration that Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution and Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961; quashing of Labour Court, Pune order dated 15.02.2017
Filing Reason
Labour Court, Pune, by order dated 15.02.2017, allowed workman's objection under Section 36(4) and prevented the employer company from engaging an advocate in Reference IDA No.121 of 2016, contrary to petitioner's submission that its officers are not well-versed in law and that the Advocates Act overrides the restriction
Previous Decisions
2nd Labour Court, Pune, in Reference IDA No.121 of 2016 passed order on 15.02.2017 sustaining workman's objection to employer engaging legal practitioner; Conciliation Officer submitted failure report leading to reference to Labour Court
Issues
Whether Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India
Whether Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is inconsistent with and overridden by Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961
Whether the Labour Court order dated 15.02.2017 refusing permission to the employer to engage an advocate is legally valid
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 came into force on 15 June 2011 and being a subsequent special legislation, it overrides Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act; the officers of the company are not well-versed with provisions of law and require legal assistance; and the Labour Court failed to appreciate the legal provisions and committed an error of law.
Respondent workman contended that Section 36(4) prohibits engaging a legal practitioner without the consent of the opposite party and since the workman was conducting the reference himself, the employer cannot be allowed to engage an advocate.
Judgment Excerpts
The objection was that the petitioner before us is a company and it has engaged an advocate for conducting the reference. That was objected to by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent pointed out that the law does not permit engaging an advocate by the petitioner.
The Labour Court has failed to appreciate that the Advocates Act, 1961 is a subsequent special legislation which overrides the provisions of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The petitioner relied upon Section 30 of the Advocates Act and submitted that Section 30 of the Advocates Act has come into force from 15th June 2011, hence no
Procedural History
Respondent workman was dismissed from services on 24.08.2015 after due process. Workman raised an industrial dispute; conciliation failed and the Government of Maharashtra referred the dispute to the 2nd Labour Court, Pune as Reference IDA No.121 of 2016. Workman filed statement of claim and an objection under Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act against employer engaging an advocate. The Labour Court, by order dated 15.02.2017, allowed the objection. The employer filed the present writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 36(4) and the Labour Court order.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 36(4)
- Advocates Act, 1961: Section 30
- Constitution of India: Article 14, Article 226
