A management was entitled to engage a legal practitioner in an industrial dispute raised by an employee. A belated plea of the employee objecting to the said appointment could not be allowed to be raised, the Madras High Court held recently while disposing of a writ petition by the South Arcot Vallalar District Mazdoor Union, Nellikuppam, challenging an order dated August 12, 2010 of the Labour Court (R-1) holding that a member of the Employers Federation of Southern India (EFSI) was entitled to represent the management.

The petitioner-union raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication by a Labour Court. On behalf of respondents (Parry's Confectionary Ltd, Nellikuppam and Lotte India Corpn Ltd, Nellikuppam), one Mr T.S. Gopalan, a committee member of EFSI, was authorised to appear in respect of the said dispute. The union objected to the said appointment. The Labour Court had rejected the objection. It held that Mr Gopalan was entitled to represent.

Mr Justice K. Chandru, who heard the petition, said it was rather unfortunate that the dispute was not allowed to be completed on technical question as to who should represent the management. According to petitioner-union, the order of the Labour Court was illegal, and that Mr Gopalan, being a legal practitioner, could not be said to be an officer of the federation of associations of employers to which the Association referred to was affiliated.

Even in respect of Section 36(2)© of the Industrial Disputes Act, a legal practitioner, who was not an employee of the employer, could not be an officer. Therefore, the order was illegal, the petitioner submitted.

This court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition against order of the Labour Court on an issue which was not even directly connected with the dispute raised by workmen, the Judge ruled. Secondly, when Mr Gopalan had filed vakalath, the petitioner objected to his appearance as a lawyer. Thereafter, when a memo was filed, an objection was raised long thereafter, and it was not conducive for smooth conducting of dispute.

In a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court [R. Rajamani vs Presiding Officer, III Additional Labour Court, Chennai, reported in 2007 (2) LLJ 704], it was held that the management was entitled to engage a legal practitioner, and that the belated plea of an employee could not be allowed to be raised. It was also held that if the union was engaging a trained lawyer, then certainly a consent required u/s 36(4) of other party to engage a lawyer could not be withheld. The question of engagement of an office-bearer of an employer's association when objected to by workmen was rejected. This court held that even if a representative was a legal practitioner, he could represent said employer, the judge held.

The judge ruled there was no reason to disagree with a view taken by this court. Hence, writ petition stood dismissed.

Related Topics