The Hindu Business Line : Member of employers' body entitled to represent company in adjudication: HC

Chennai March 22 Under Section 36(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, in industrial adjudications, an employer could be represented by an office-bearer of an association of employers who was also a legal practitioner, the Madras High Court has ruled.

In a writ appeal, a worker (R. Rajamani) in Addisons Paints & Chemicals Ltd, Chennai, had challenged an order of a single judge confirming a common order dated 3-1-2005 of the Labour Court upholding the right of an advocate, who was a member of the managing committee of All-India Manufacturers Organisation, to represent respondent-company (Addisons Paints) in the industrial dispute.

According to the appellant, the expression `officer' did not include the member of the managing committee of the Manufacturers Organisation, and hence, Mr N. Balasubramanian had no legal sanction to represent in the adjudication.

The First Bench, comprising the Chief Justice, Mr A.P. Shah, and Mr Justice K. Chandru, citing a judgment of a Division Bench of Bombay High Court, said a member of an executive committee of an association of employers must be taken to be an officer of the employers' association. Hence, Mr Balasubramanian was entitled to represent the company in his capacity as member of the managing committee of the Employers' Association.

The First Bench was of the view that the word `officer' was of a wider import in that it included not only those who were appointed to a post of responsibility, but also persons elected or nominated to a governing body or executive or managing committee in accordance with the constitution or by-law of concerned institution or body.

The Bench said that in a case between management of HMEM Equipment Division Ltd vs PO (2007(1) MLJ 749), it was held that though workmen were technically represented by a leader of trade union, the said person was an advocate practising before High Court.

If same benefit was denied to management, it would certainly result in an imbalance being created in defending the case and it would violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

In the result, the Bench held that Mr Balasubramanian was entitled to represent company. Consequently, the writ appeal was dismissed.