Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN MONDAY,THE17H DAY OF FEBRUARY201428TH MAGHA, 1935 OP(LC).No. 6 of 2014 (O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER
DATED1812-2013 IN CLAIM PETITION NO.16/2013 OF LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM ---------------- PETITIONER/1ST OPPOSITE PARTY : ------------------------------------------------------ A.C.ANANDAN (MONACHAN) S/O.CHERIYAN, AGED50YEARS ANANDA BHAVAN, SAKTHIKULANGARA PO KOLLAM691001. BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.MANU SMT.SAGIMOL A. MENACHERY RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/2ND & 3RD OPPOSITE PARTIES : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. G.VIJAYAKUMAR BINIL BHAVANAM, KANNIMEL CHERRY, MARUTHADY PO., KOLLAM691001.
2. D. GYARIDAS, REG.OWER KL2/M/2455, HEMANAND HOUSE MAYYANADU PO., KOLLAM691001.
3. SUNIL KUMAR POUNDAZHIKAM, MAYYANADU PO, KOLLAM - 691 002. THIS OP (LABOUR COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1702-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- OP(LC).No. 6 of 2014 (O) ----------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : ------------------------------------- EXT.P1 - A TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION NO.16/13 FILED BY THE1T RESPONDENT. EXTP2 - A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN CLAIM PETITION NO.16/13 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 - A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT IN CLAIM PETITION NO.16/13 DT. 18-12-13 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(LC). 6 of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 17th February, 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT
The 1st Opposite party/Management in an application filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'I.D.Act') is before this Court contending that the petitioner is entitled to engage a lawyer to represent him before the Labour Court. Admittedly, the workman therein is appearing through the Trade Union Leader and objected to the representation of the Management, by a lawyer as per Section 36(4) of the I.D.Act. Essential contention of the petitioner is that Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 confers on the lawyer's a right to practice before all Courts, Tribunals and such other Forums. This could be exercised as a matter of right, is the contention. The petitioner hence contends that he be permitted to OP(LC).6/14 2 engage a lawyer for being represented before the Labour Court, after setting aside Ext.P3 order.
2. Though Section 30 has been brought into force by a notification on 15.6.2011, the specific contention has been answered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Paradip Port Trust, Paradip v. Their Workmen (AIR 1977 SC, 36). The learned Judges held so in paragraph 24:- "Second, the matter is not to be viewed from the point of view of legal practitioners but from that of the employer and workmen who are the principal contestants in an industrial dispute. It is only when a party engages a legal practitioner as such that the latter is enabled to enter appearance before Courts or tribunals. Here, under the Act, the restriction is upon a party as such and the occasion to consider the right of the legal practitioner may not arise." Though Section 30 of the Advocates Act was OP(LC).6/14 3 not enforced at that point of time, the effect of the said provision was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court. The principle enunciated squarely answers the contention of the petitioner. Hence, there being a specific prohibition under Section 36(4) of the I.DAct, the Original Petition is found to be devoid of merit and is hence dismissed, upholding Ext.P3. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge Mrcs