Gujarat High Court
Krupashankar Jagdambaprasad Tivari vs Kishor Vadilal Pvt Ltd And Another on 30 June, 2014
Author: Paresh Upadhyay
Bench: Paresh Upadhyay
C/SCA/8607/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8607 of 2014
================================================================
KRUPASHANKAR JAGDAMBAPRASAD TIVARI....Petitioner
Versus
KISHOR VADILAL PVT LTD AND ANOTHER ........Respondents
================================================================
Appearance:
MS ASHLESHA M PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
Date : 30/06/2014
ORAL ORDER
1. Amendment granted.
2. Challenge in this petition is made to the order passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad dated 24.03.2014 on Application Exhibit-6 filed by the petitioner-workman in Review Application No. 13 of 2013 filed by the respondent- employer in Reference (LCA) No. 1343 of 2008, which was decided on 26.09.2013.
3. The case of the petitioner-workman before the Labour Court in review proceedings was that the respondent herein-the employer could not be permitted to avail the service of a lawyer. The said application is rejected. The Labour Court has recorded the finding that in the main Reference, on behalf of the employer, an advocate was appearing and award was passed and in Page 1 of 2 C/SCA/8607/2014 ORDER those proceedings, this review is filed by the employer, through an advocate, which is objected by the workman. The Labour Court has in this factual background rejected the said application.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the finding of the Labour Court that in earlier round of litigation an advocate was already appearing, is factually incorrect. In this regard, it needs to be recorded that, if that is so, it would be a case of the review before the Labour Court, if the petitioner so desired. However, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is desirous of inviting an order on merits. Under these circumstances, this order is being recorded. Having gone through the reasons recorded by the Labour Court, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order, and the petition needs to be dismissed.
5. There is an additional dimension of the matter. The discretion of the party to permit or object to the appearance of an advocate on behalf of the other side and the misuse thereof is extensively dealt with by this Court in the judgment recorded on Special Civil Application No. 192 of 2013 and cognate matters dated 17.12.2013. Keeping in view the said judgment also, this petition needs to be dismissed.
6. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is dismissed.
(PARESH UPADHYAY, J.) salim/13 Page 2 of 2