South Arcot Vallalar District Mazdoor Union vs The Presiding Officer, Labor Court, Parry's Confectionary Limited and Lotte India Corporation Limited

K. Chandru, J.—The Petitioner is a Trade Union. They have come forward to challenge an interim order passed by the first Respondent Labor Court, Cuddalore in I.A. No. 45 of 2008 in I.D. No. 42 of 2005, dated 12.08.2010.

When the writ petition came up for admission on 21.1.2011, this Court directed private notice to be issued to second and third Respondents. Accordingly, notices have been served. They are represented by their counsel. The Petitioner union raised an industrial dispute which ultimately was referred for adjudication by the first Respondent Labor Court vide Government Order in G.O.(D) No. 216, Labor and Employment Department, dated 21.12.2005. The said reference was taken on file by the first Respondent Labor Court as I.D. No. 42 of 2005.

The Petitioner Union filed a claim statement, dated 29.8.2005. On behalf of the Respondents, M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co., had filed vakalath. As soon as vakalath was filed to appear on behalf of the Respondents by a legal practitioner, the Petitioner had filed an objection memo, dated 29.8.2005 asking the Labor Court to reject the valalath on the ground that they did not give consent for filing vakalath and permitting the Respondents to be represented by the legal counsel. For the said memo, the Respondents filed an objection statement stating that vakalath was filed for Respondents on 25.4.2005. Thereafter, when the matter was posted during the months of May, July and August, no objection was raised. Therefore, it was not open to them to raise such a belated objection.

In the meanwhile, on behalf of the Respondents, a counter statement, dated 15.9.2005 was filed. Once again on behalf of Respondents, an authorization memo, dated 18.2.2008 was filed u/s 36(2)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In that authorization memo, Mr. T.S. Gopalan, a Committee Member of Employer''s Federation of Southern India, of which the second Respondent was the member, was authorized to appear in respect of the dispute. Once again, the Petitioner union had raised an objection for the memo, for which a counter affidavit was also filed by the second Respondent justifying the appearance through an authorized representative. In order to prove that Mr. T.S. Gopalan was the office bearer of the Employer''s Federation of Southern India (EFSI), a witness by name V. Shankar who was the Chief Executive of the EFSI was examined. Subsequently, the Company Secretary of the second Respondent was examined. He was also cross examined by the Petitioner union. The objection petition filed by the Petitioner was taken on file as I.A. No. 45 of 2008. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the Labor Court by its order, dated 12.8.2010 had rejected the objection made by the Petitioner union. It held that Mr. T.S. Gopalan, a member of the EFSI was entitled to represent. It is this order which is under challenge in this writ petition.

In normal circumstances, the order passed by the Labor Court should have been given quietus in the larger interest of the workmen. It must be seen that the dispute was referred to the Labor Court during the year 2005 and that from the date of reference, more than five years have elapsed. It is rather unfortunate that the dispute is not allowed to be completed on the technical question as to who should represent the management. The Petitioner union has filed the present writ petition contending that the order of the Labor Court made in the I.A was illegal and that Mr. T.S. Gopalan being the legal practitioner cannot be said to be an officer of the federation of associations of employers to which the association referred to in Clause (a) of Section 36(2) is affiliated. Even in respect of Section 36(2)(c), a legal practitioner who is not an employee of the employer cannot be an officer. Therefore, the order was illegal.

A reference was made to a larger bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court made in L.P.A. No. 250 of 2009 in C.W.P. No. 4332 of 2007, dated 13.11.2009 in a case relating to Hygienice Foods Malerkotia Road, Khanna, District Ludhiana v. Jasbir Singh and Ors.. In that case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had disagreed with the judgment made by this Court in The Management, Hindustan Motors Earth Moving Equipment Division Limited, Chennai Car Plant Vs. The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Mr. T. Soundrarajan and Catter Pillar India Private Ltd., (Erstwhile Hindustan Motors Limited, Earthmoving Equipment Division), , which view was confirmed by a division bench of this Court in R. Rajamani Vs. The Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court and P.V. Sundaram (Director), Addisons Paints and Chemical Limited, .

In the first case, this Court held that the management was entitled to engage a legal practitioner and that the belated plea of the employee cannot allowed to be raised. It was also held that if the trade union was engaging a trained lawyer, then certainly a consent required u/s 36(4) of the other party to engage a lawyer cannot be withheld. In the division bench judgment cited in R. Rajamani''s case, the question of engagement of an office bearer of an employer''s association when objected to by the workmen was rejected. This Court held that even if a representative is a legal practitioner, he can represent the said employer.

Though the larger bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court had disagreed with the view taken by this Court, this Court is not willing to take a different view than the view taken by this Court in the case cited supra. This writ petition is liable to be dismissed on more than one ground. Firstly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition against the preliminary order passed by the Labor Court on an issue which is not even directly connected with the dispute raised by the workmen. Secondly, when Mr. T.S. Gopalan had filed vakalath, the Petitioner had objected to his appearance as a lawyer. Thereafter, when a memo was filed, an objection was raised long thereafter and it is not conducive for smooth conducting of the Industrial Dispute. Thirdly, there is no reason to disagree with a view taken by this Court.

In the light of the above, this writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.