MobileView

GujaratHighCourt
BarodaIspatPvt.Ltd.vsRamgopalM.PatelAndOrs.on9September,2004
Equivalentcitations:(2005)1GLR153
Author:RRTripathi
Bench:RRTripathi

JUDGMENTRaviR.Tripathi,J.

1. One Shri S.B. Chaudhary, President of Rashtriya Labour Union (Gujarat State) bearing
Registration No.G4742 is present before the Court and files authority letters in both these
petitions which are taken on record. At the joint request of the learned advocates and the
representativerepresentingthe respondentRamgopal M. Patel and others the matters are taken
upforfinalhearing.

2. RULE. Shri S.B.Chaudhary, President of Rashtriya Labour Union (Gujarat State) waives
serviceofrule.

3.Thesepetitionsarefiledbytwodifferentcompanies,namely,BarodaIspatPrivateLimitedand
HyTuf Steels Private Limited against an order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Vadodara, on an applicationobjecting to file Vakalatnama in Recovery Applications No.439 of
2004 to 551 of 2004, dated 29th June 2004. The learned Judge was pleased to uphold the
objection raised by the workmen, objecting to filing of Vakalatnama by one Shri Mehulsinh
Mehta,advocateonbehalfofthepetitionersherein.However,thelearnedJudgeclarifiedthatif
thepetitionerssochoose,asprovidedintheIndustrialDisputesAct,1947(hereinafterreferredto
as"theAct")itwillbeopenforthemtogetrepresentedanddefendtheircasethroughauthorised
representativeortodefendthemselves.

4.ThefactsofthecasearethattheworkmenfiledtheaforesaidRecoveryApplicationsNo.439of
2004 to 551 of 2004, a copy of one such recovery application (No.439 of 2004 filed on
06.04.2004) is produced at Annexure 'B' herein. It is not in dispute that on such recovery
applicationbeingfiledthelearnedJudgewaspleasedtoissuenoticeandinresponsetheretothe
petitioners appeared before the Labour Court on 18.06.2004 and the authorised signatory filed
anapplication(Exhibit4)prayingfor,'anadjournmenttoenablehimtoengageanadvocate'.Itis
statedbythelearnedadvocateforthepetitionersinboththesepetitions(asstatedinpara3ofthe
memoofpetition)thatthepersonwhoisrepresentingtherespondentsbeforethisCourt,namely,
ShriS.B.Chaudhary,PresidentofRashtriyaLabourUnionwaspresentbeforetheLabourCourt
on 18.06.2004 and he did not object to the said application. The learned Judge was pleased to
order that, 'subject to the provisions of the Act the matter is adjourned to 28.06.2004 in the
interestofjusticetoenablethepartytoengagearepresentativeandfilereply'.On28.06.2004,an
applicationExhibit 6 was filed, along with Vakalatnama of Shri Mehulsinh Mehta, advocate by
the petitioners' authorised signatory. It is stated in the application that, "The opponent above
named most respectfully submits that adjudication of the present application involves
complicatedissuesoflawandfacts.Theopponentsarenotawareofthelawandtheprocedure
andthereforerequestedtheHonourableCourttopermitthemtoengageanadvocateanddefend
theircaseintheinterestofjustice."

5.Onthisapplicationanobjectionisraised,whichismarkedontheapplication(Exhibit6)bya
rubberstamp.Thefactthatarubberstampisgotpreparedshowsthatsuchobjectionistakenasa
matterofcourseandisnottakeninthefactsofthisparticularcaseonly.Therubberstampreads
thus,"Thepersonappearingfortheopponentsisalegalpractitioner(advocate).Intheoriginal
application a relief is sought for and objection is taken against such appearance.Hence
Vakalatnama(authority)berejectedintheinterestofjustice."

6. The learned Judge has passed an order, on 29.06.2004, which is under challenge in these
petitions.Thecaseofthepetitionersisthaton18.06.2004whenanadjournmentwassoughtfor,
in presence of Shri S.B. Chaudhary, it was not objected to. Thisnot taking objection to an
adjournment for engaging an advocate amounts to an implied consent on the part of the
workmen and therefore, the objection which is raised on 28.06.2004 is of no consequence and
the same could not have been taken into consideration and the permission ought to have been
granted.Mr.Patel,thelearnedadvocaterelieduponthedecisioninthematterofOrissaCement
Limitedv.StateofOrissaandOrs.,reportedin1995IICLR384tosupporthiscontentionthat,
'once objection is not taken, it amounts to an implied consent, such implied consent can be
gatheredfromthecircumstancesandconductoftheparty'.Thelearnedadvocatepointingoutthe
factsofthecasebeforetheHonourableHighCourtofOrissasubmittedthattheretheemployer
hadaskedfortimeonthegroundthathisadvocatewassickandwasunabletoattendtheCourt.
Atthatpointoftimetheworkmendidnotobjecttoappearanceofalegalpractitionerandthat
factofnottakingobjectionwasconstruedtobeanimpliedconsentonthepartoftheworkmen
and the High Court was pleased to hold that the Labour Court was not right in not granting
permissiontothelegalpractitioner.Thelearnedadvocatepointedoutthefactsnarratedinpara2
andtherelevantdiscussioninpara9ofthejudgement.

7.ThelearnedadvocatenextrelieduponajudgementoftheHighCourtofJudicatureofBombay
in the matter of Engineering Mazdoor Sabha, Bombay v. Meher (M.R.) (Industrial Tribunal,
Bombay)andOrs.,reportedin1966ILLJ580.Theretheemployerwasallowedtoberepresented
by a lawyer at the commencement of hearing without objection. Whereas on a subsequent
occasionappearanceofthelawyerwasobjectedto.TheHighCourtwaspleasedtoholdthatthe
objectionatasubsequentstageisnotpermissible.Besides,theHighCourtalsoheldthatabsence
ofspecificobjectionwouldbetakentobeimpliedconsent.

8.ThelearnedadvocatealsorelieduponadecisionofKeralaHighCourtinthematterofCalicut
CooperativeMilkSupplyUnionv.CalicutCooperativeMilkSupplyWorkersUnion,reportedin
1986IILLJ422andadecisionoftheHighCourtofJudicatureatCalcuttainthematterofShiraz
GoldenRestaurantv.StateofWestBengalandOrs.,reportedin2000IILLJ1101.Lastbutnot
least the learned advocate also relied upon a decision of this Court (Coram: M.R. Calla, J.) in
SpecialCivilApplicationNo.8301of1995dated10.10.1995.

9.Mr.S.B.Chaudhary,PresidentofRashtriyaLabourUnionvehementlyopposedthesepetitions
andsubmittedthatthesepetitionsarefiledonlywithaviewtodelaytheproceedingsbeforethe
Labour Court. He invited the attention of the Court to the averments made in the recovery
application which is annexed at Annexure 'B' to one of the petitions. He submitted that the
petitioner companies are acting in a manner, which is not only highly prejudicial but also
oppressive and so on. But then when he was conveyed that the question involved in these
petitionsisonly,'astowhethertheorderpassedbythelearnedJudgeonanobjectionapplication
in the recovery application dated 29th June 2004, is required to be upheld or quashed and set
aside', he restrained himself from making general submissions/ allegations. He submitted that
therespondentworkmen,haveobjectedtotheappointmentofalawyerrightfromthebeginning,
thatis,filingoftherecoveryapplication,whereininpara9(prayerclause'E')itisprayedthatan
orderbepassedundersection36(3)and36(4)oftheAct,notpermittinganylegalpractitionerin
anymanner,towhichworkmendonotconsenttoandtakeseriousobjection.Hesubmittedthat
besides on 28.06.2004 when application (Exhibit 6) was given and Vakalatnama was filed,
objection was recorded on both these documents. He submitted that the order passed by the
learnedJudgeisabsolutelyjustandproperbeinginaccordancewithlaw,inconsonancewiththe
provisions of 'the Act' contained in section 36, more particularly subsections (3) and (4). He
furthersubmittedthatsubsection(2)ofsection36providesthecategoryofpersons,bywhoman
employer can be represented in the proceedings under the Act. He emphasised that a 'legal
practitioner' is specifically barred under subsec.(3) of section36 of the Act. The only exception
which carved out to subsection (3) is by subsection (4). Subsection (4) of section 36 of the Act
providesforconsentoftheotherside.Meaningtherebythatonlywiththeconsentoftheother
sidetotheproceedingandwiththeleaveoftheLabourCourt,TribunalorNationalTribunal,a
legalpractitionercanbeallowedtorepresent.Sothe'consent'oftheothersideand'leaveofthe
Court'aretheconditionprecedentforapartytoberepresentedbyalegalpractitionerunderthis
Act.Insupportofthiscontentionhereferredtothefollowingjudgements:

(i) In the matter of J.B. Transport Company and Ors. v. Shankarlal @ Mavaram Nathuji Patel,
reportedin1999(3)GLR2019.

(ii)Decisiondated09.12.1998oftheDivisionBenchofthisCourt(Coram:C.K.Thakker&A.L.
Dave,JJ.)inthematterofJ.B.TransportCompanyandOrs.v.Shankarlal@MavaramNathuji
PatelinLettersPatentAppealNo.1101of1998arisingfromtheaforesaiddecisionofthelearned
SingleJudge.

(iii) Decision dated 21.04.2003 of this Court (Coram: H.K. Rathod, J.) in the matter of Sports
AuthorityofGujaratv.MahendraMuljibhaiParmarinSpecialCivilApplicationNo.119of2003.

(iv)DecisionofDelhiHighCourtinthematterofPrasar Bharathi Broadcasting Corporation of

Indiav.SurajPalSharmaandAnr.,reportedin1999ILLJ184.

(v)DecisioninthematterofParvathiMills,Kollam,UnitofNTCLtd.,v.QuilonHotelandTea
ShopWorkersUnion(INTUC)KollamandAnr.,reportedin2000IILLJ530.

(vi) Decision of Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Project Director, Agriculture and Soil
Surveyv.SurendraSinghandAnr.,reportedin1998Lab.I.C.2983,and

(vii) Decision of Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Paradip Port Trust v. Their Workmen,
reportedin1976IILLJ409.

10. Mr.Chaudhary reiterated that in light of the provision of subsection (3) of section36 of the
Act, a party does not have a right to be represented by a legal practitioner in any conciliation
proceedingunderthisActoranyproceedingbeforetheCourt.Hesubmittedthat,thatbeingthe
positionoflawandinviewofthefactthattheconditionsprovidedundersubsection(4)ofsection
36oftheActarenotfulfilled,thelearnedJudgeisrightinpassingtheorderunderchallengeand
thesameisnotrequiredtobeinterferedwithbythisCourt,moreparticularlywhenthesoleidea
istodelaytheproceedingsbeforetheLabourCourt.Healsosubmittedthattheworkmenareina
very pathetic condition as they are not paid their wages for the period from 01.12.2003 to
29.02.2004 for which they had worked. Today they are in starving condition. They are 124 in
numberandvariousproceedingsincludingcriminalcasesarefiledagainstthem.

11.Mr.S.B.Chaudharythoughplacedseveraldecisionsenlistedhereinaboveisnotabletopoint
outanydecisionhavingsimilarfacts,namely,atonestageoftheproceedingsobjectionwasnot
raisedandthereafterobjectionwasraised.Asagainstthatinthedecisions,citedbythelearned
advocateforthepetitionerthefactsarealmostidentical.

Thelawisasprovidedinsubsection(3)ofsection36oftheAct,whichisasunder:

"Nopartytoadisputeshallbeentitledtoberepresentedbyalegalpractitionerinanyconciliation
proceedingsunderthisActorinanyproceedingsbeforeaCourt."

Mr.Chaudharysubmittedthatbyvirtueofthisprovisionalegalpractitionercannotrepresentin
anyproceedingunderthisActinanyproceedingsbeforeaCourt.Atthisjuncture,Mr.Patel,the
learnedadvocatepointedoutthedefinitionoftheterm'Court'inclause(f)ofsection2oftheAct,
whereinitisprovidedthat,"Court"means'aCourtofInquiryconstitutedunderthisAct'andfor
the constitution of Court, provision is made in section 6. He therefore, submitted that the
provisionsofsubsec.(3)ofsection36havenoapplicationtothefatsofthiscase.Thefactsofthe
casewillbegovernedbyprovisionsofsubsec.(4)ofsection36oftheAct.

12.Subsec.(4)ofsection36providesfortwothingsasconditionsprecedent,namely,(i)consent
oftheotherpartiestotheproceedings,and(ii)leaveoftheLabourCourtorTribunalorNational
Tribunalasthecasemaybe.IntheconsideredopinionofthisCourt,inthepresentcasetheissue
isnotastowhether,'alegalpractitionercanappearornot'infactthequestionisastowhether,
'inthefactsofthecasewhenanapplicationwasgivenon18.06.2004onbehalfofthepetitioner,
seekinganadjournmentonthegroundthat,"asthematterinvolvesquestionoflaw,timemaybe
grantedtoengagealawyerandfilereply"inthepresenceofShriChaudharyandinhispresence
the Court was pleased to adjourn the matter by saying that "subject to the provisions of the
IndustrialDisputesActforengagingarepresentativeandtofilereply,thematterisadjournedin
theinterestofjustice,"thennottakingofanyobjectionbyShriS.B.Chaudharyon18.06.2004,
whethershouldbeconsideredtobeanimpliedconsentornot.

OncarefulconsiderationofthefactsofthecaseinlightoftherivalsubmissionsthisCourtisof
the opinion that the decisions cited by the learned advocate of various High Courts, namely,
Orissa,Bombay,KeralaandCalcuttaaredirectlyonthepoint.OrissaHighCourtinitsdecisionof
OrissaCementLimitedv.StateofOrissaandOrs.,1995IICLR384(supra)hastakenaviewthat,
'consent is not required to be an express consent', 'it can be an implied consent', which can be
ascertainedfromthecircumstancesandconductoftheparty'.Whatisrequiredtobeconsidered
thereafterisastowhether,oncesuchanimpliedconsentisgivencanbewithdrawnbytheparty
at a later stage or not. Mr.Patel, the learned advocate submitted that such consent cannot be
withdrawnasheldbythisthisCourt(Coram:M.R.Calla,J.)inSpecialCivilApplicationNo.8301
of1995(supra),whereinitisobservedthat,"....Itistritelawthattheconsentinsuchcases,once
given by a party to the benefit of the other party to be represented by a lawyer, cannot be
withdrawn....."

13.InviewoftheaforesaiddiscussionthisCourtholdsthatitisclearfromthefactsofthecase
that Shri S.B. Chaudhary who did not object to application (Exhibit 4) dated 18.06.2004,
impliedlyconsentedtothereasonforwhichadjournmentwassoughtforandthatreasonwas,to
engageanadvocateandfileareply.Thereason,toengageanadvocate,'wasthefirstandfilinga
replywasthesecond.Inthatviewofthematter,acceptingtheviewtakenbyvariousHighCourts
in the aforesaid decisions, this Court holds that there was an implied consent on the part of
Mr.S.B.Chaudharyon18.06.2004.Further,agreeingwiththeviewtakenbythisCourtinSpecial
Civil Application No.8301 of 1995, 'the consent once given cannot be withdrawn', the order
passed by the learned Judge is quashed and set aside. The petitions are allowed. Rule is made
absolute.Noorderastocosts.

Noorderforcostispassedbytakingintoconsiderationthefactthattherespondentworkmenare
representedbytheUnionPresident,whobonafidelytothebestofhisabilitypresentedthecase
oftherespondentworkmen.