Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.3 In Special Civil Application No.12230 of 2014 challenge is made by the establishment to the order passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar dated 25.04.2014 below Exh.3, in the proceedings of Reference (LCB) Demand No.3 of 2012. By the said order, the Labour Court has refused permission to the establishment (the proprietor) to avail the service of an Advocate to put its case before the Labour Court, in view of the objection taken by Mr. Amit Chauhan, the General Secretary of the Majdoor Adhikhar Sangh, Bhavnagar, as the representative of the concerned workmen.

7.1 In Special Civil Application No.12230 of 2014 challenge is made by the establishment to the order passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar dated 25.04.2014 below Exh.3 in the proceedings of Reference (LCB) No.3 of 2012. By the said order, the Labour Court has refused permission to the establishment (the proprietor) to avail the service of an Advocate to put its case before the Labour Court, in view of the objection taken by Mr. Amit Chauhan, the General Secretary of the Majdoor Adhikhar Sangh, Bhavnagar, as the representative of the concerned workmen.

7.2 In Special Civil Application No.12230 of 2014, on behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that, the petitioner is a proprietor, and the respondent is represented through a legally trained mind and there would not be any match in putting the case before the Labour Court, if the petitioner is not permitted to avail the assistance of an Advocate. It is further submitted that, the petitioner is a small trader and to expect him to be present before the Labour Court for whole day on all the dates, when the matter is to be listed for hearing, would not only be not possible for the petitioner, but would be violative of his fundamental right to carry out his trade. It is further submitted that, even if he remains present before the Labour Court, he would not be able to put his case before the Labour Court and he would not be able to meet with the procedural requirement of the Court. It is submitted that, under these circumstances, application was given to engage an Advocate, however the respondent Union raised objection and under these circumstances, the impugned order is passed. Attention of this Court is specifically invited to para:2 of Exh.9 application that the respondent Union is known to resort to such tactic and in the event, it is interfered with by the High Court, and give up the issue. It is submitted that, under these circumstances, the petitioner be permitted to avail the service of an Advocate. It is submitted that, this petition be allowed.

10. In the facts and circumstances and for the reasons recorded above, the following order is passed. 10.1 These six petitions are allowed.

10.2.1 The common award passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) Case Nos. 203, 204 and 205 of 2005 dated 28.12.2012, [the details of which are given in para:2.1 above] is quashed and set aside.

10.2.2 The awards passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) Case Nos. 123 and 124 of 2003 - both dated 28.03.2014, [the details of which are given in paras:2.2 above] are quashed and set aside.