Supreme CourtDivision Bench(2011) 05 SC CK 0002

Hygienic Foods vs Jasbir Singh and Others

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 6 May 2011 · Citation: (2011) 4 UJ 2149

HON’BLE JUDGES
Markandey Katju, J · Gyan Sudha Misra, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 10138 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 367 words
1.

Heard learned Counsel for the appearing parties.

2.

In this case the Petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dated 13.11.2009 by which the High Court held that a lawyer cannot appear before a Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act without the consent of the workman and the leave of the Court in view of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

3.

We, prima facie, are of the opinion that this provision in the Industrial Disputes Act debarring the lawyers from appearing before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal is unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. This is because industrial law has become so complex that a layman cannot possibly present his case properly before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. Similarly, Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 debarring lawyers from appearing before the Family Courts also appears to us, prima facie, to be unconstitutional because family law has become so complex that an ordinary layman cannot possibly be expected to put up his/her case properly before the Family Courts. Hence to debar lawyers will really be denying justice to millions of people.

4.

We, therefore, permit the Petitioner to add the above grounds challenging the validity of these provisions in the Industrial Disputes Act and the Family Courts Act within two weeks, to which reply may be filed within four weeks thereafter. We are expanding the scope of this SLP suo motu by adding the ground challenging the validity of Section 13 of the Family Courts Act.

5.

Issue notice to the Attorney General of India, who may also file response in the meantime.

6.

We have requested Mr. Fali S. Nariman, learned senior counsel, to assist us as Amicus Curiae in this case and he has kindly agreed to do so. Mr. Fakhruddin, learned senior counsel, may also assist Mr. Fali S. Nariman.

7.

Copy of this Order as well as of the SLP will be supplied to the learned Attorney General, Mr. Fali S. Nariman and Mr. Fakhruddin forthwith. Copy of this Order will also be given to the parties on payment of usual charges.

List on 12.07.2011.