AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner (management) and submits, impugned is order dated 3rd February, 2024 made by the Labour Court sustaining objection of opposite party no.2 (workman) regarding engagement of counsel by his client. Basis of the objection being inability of the workman to afford counsel, the Labour Court ought to have directed legal aid for him to deal with the objection.
On query from Court Mr. Mishra submits, the claim petition is disclosed as annexure-1. We reproduce below paragraph-8 and the prayer from it.
“(8). That on dt. 01/08/2023 O.P. sent a DD amount of Rs.8,16,457/- along with a letter stating the amount as full and final amount vide their letter no.TSLP/J/E7/1/HRM/314 dated 01.08.2023.
xxx xxx xxx
PRAYER
Under the above circumstances, the workman pray to the Hon’ble court to admit this case under Section 33(C)(2) of ID Act 1947 kindly and necessary orders may kindly be passed to the management pay the petitioner his entitlements of Rs.51,48,879.56 with interest as applicable as per the calculation sheets attached with in Annexure-1-15 sheets. ”
Mr. Mishra reminds us, challenge in the writ petition is to order dated 3rd February, 2024 made by the Labour Court rejecting representation of his client because the workman objected on saying he was unable to afford counsel. Mr. Mishra reiterates, he could have obtained legal aid. He relies on decision taken on 16th May, 1990 of coordinate Bench in P. Adinarayan Reddy vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and others reported in 1991 LabIC 1477 to submit, impugned order be set aside with direction upon the Labour Court to adjudicate on merits of the objection raised by the workman.
Mrs. Pattanaik, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.1.
Mr. Rath, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.2 (workman). He submits, his client all along represented himself and will continue to do so in the proceeding initiated by him on claim filed under section 33-C(2) in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He objects to the management being represented. His contention is that it is a case of computation of his benefit and he apprehends that he will be out maneuvered by legal practitioner, if engaged by the management to oppose his claim. On query from Court Mr. Rath submits, interim relief obtained under section 17-B was approximately aggregate ₹11.5 lakhs.
We reproduce below sub-section (4) in section 36.
“36(4) In any proceeding [before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal], a party to a dispute may be represented by a legal practitioner with the consent of the other parties to the proceedings and [with the leave of the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be].”
In the facts and circumstances aforesaid we think it is a fit case for the Labour Court to grant leave for the management to have representation but the workman objects. The provision mandates both, consent and leave.
We by our judgment dated 23rd April, 2024 in, inter alia, W.P.(C) No.26815 of 2023 (Sailendra Narayan Lenka vrs. Sanofi India Ltd., Mumbai and others) had expressed our view regarding force of sub-section (4) in section 36. It follows, where the workman objects to the management being represented, we cannot direct otherwise. Controversy decided in P. Adinarayan Reddy (supra) was regarding interpretation of sub-section (1) in section 36. Reference to, inter alia, sub-section (4) in section 36 does not make it a view of interpretation on sub-section (4). The decision does not help petitioner.
Before us contention of the workman is insistence on him prosecuting his claim by himself. To us it appears, the insistence is to enable him to object to the management being represented. On query made we have ascertained, award dated 16th November, 2012 directing, inter alia, reinstatement and back wages was challenged by the management. It was unsuccessful. As aforesaid, interim relief under section 17-B was obtained by the workman. Our this inference regarding his insistence and consequent objection is on basis of earlier contention of the workman that he cannot afford representation, changed to contention that he does not want to have representation.
We have ascertained further that the workman achieved age of superannuation on 30th June, 2021. He received interim relief under section 17-B. The provision was made applicable to the workman where the management did not demonstrate application of the proviso. In the circumstances money received as interim relief must also be taken into account by the Labour Court in computing the benefit.
The writ petition is disposed of on our above observations.
……………………………