The Hindu Business Line : `Managements too have right to engage lawyer'

If workmen engaged a trained reasoned lawyer, the managements should not be denied the same right by relying on Section 36(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Madras High Court has ruled.

Workmen withholding consent to employer seeking assistance of an advocate in defending their case was never contemplated, Mr Justice K. Chandru said and held that such an act resulted in an anomalous situation. In a petition by the management of Hindustan Motors Earth Moving Equipment Division Ltd, Thiruvallur, in the garb of exercising their right of withholding consent, the Madras-Chengalpattu General Workers Union, waited for 55 adjournments and had allowed management to be represented by lawyer earlier and had raised this issue after five years. "This will result in grave injustice and will be in violation of Article 14 of Constitution", Judge ruled.

The workman (M. Radhakrishnan) engaged an authorised representative to defend him in a case relating to his non-employment. The petitioners (Hindustan Motors Earthmoving) were represented by a counsel and they filed a vakalat on 27-3-2002. After 55 adjournments, the workman filed the application objecting to the petitioner being represented by a lawyer as per Section 36(4) of ID Act. This was resisted by the petitioners.

The Labour Court sustained objection of workman solely on ground that workman did not give consent.

The Judge said that the objection of workman could never be allowed, and nowhere Section 36 talked about any written consent of a party to be obtained in matter of another party engaging a legal practitioner. In a given situation, hyper-technical approach of the Labour Court should be avoided. The spirit of Section 36 had been practically defeated by the "hide and seek" game adopted by parties before the Labour Court over the years.

The authorities must permit defence by a legal practitioner if one party had such a facility even if there was a legal bar under a statute, the Judge held. Section 36(4) must, therefore, be interpreted only in this context.

As cases related to non-employment and matter was held up for 5 years, the Labour Court was directed to dispose of same within 3 months.

In regard to the other case pertaining only to a claim pertaining to year 2004, the Labour Court was directed to dispose of the same within 3 months. Both workmen and management in all petitions were directed to co-operate in getting on with trial without putting any further spokes on smooth progress of trial, High Court said.

More Stories on : Courts/Legal Issues | Trade & Labour Unions | Tamil Nadu

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page