Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (1.17 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 10 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
J.B. Transport Company And Ors. vs Shankarlal @ Mavaram Nathuji Patel on 22 July, 1998
In J.B.Transport case the workman was a driver with the Transport Company whose services were terminated. High Court also felt that the Court rightly refused permission to appear on behalf of the employers association.
The Management, Hindustan Motors Earth ... vs The Presiding Officer, Principal ... on 20 January, 2007
28. Reference was also made to judgment of the Delhi High Court in Hindustan Motors Limited v. Presiding Officer 2004(1) Recent Services Judgment 712. This was the judgment on the basis of which the present reference was made to larger Bench. In this case the workman had appeared through an Advocate but he had later objected to the appearance of an Advocate on behalf of the management. At the time when he raised this objection, the workman was not represented by any lawyer. The Court held that the mere fact that the workman had not objected earlier to the representation by the company through an advocate cannot be a ground to deny him the benefit under Section 36 to raise the objection at a later stage.
Prasar Bharati Broadcasting ... vs Shri Suraj Pal Sharma & Anr. on 7 December, 1998
In Parsar Bharathi Broadcasting Corporation of India v. Suraj Pal Sharma and Anr. 1999 ILLJ 1306 Delhi High Court made some pertinent observations as follows:
Calicut Co-Operative Milk Supply Union vs Calicut Co-Operative Milk Supply ... on 31 March, 1986
31. The first judgment is Calicut Co-operative Milk Supply Union v. Calicut Co-operative Milk Supply Workers Union 1986(II) L.L.J. 422. In this case the Co-operative Society appeared through an Advocate and the Workers Union also appeared through an Advocate. After a few years the Union prayed that it be allowed to conduct the case without the consent of a lawyer and simultaneously objected to the Co-operative Society from being represented by its lawyer. This request was not allowed. The Kerala High Court came to the following conclusion:
Paradip Port Trust, Paradip vs Their Workmen on 9 September, 1976
Radhey Sham's case is clearly distinguishable from the controversy before us. Therefore, the dictum of Paradip Port Trust's case in respect of matters covered by Section 36(2) would not apply to a case such as the present case where the matter is under Section 36(3) and (4) and depends upon whether implied leave and implied leave is valid or not. We had in the earlier part of the judgment noted that legal proceedings proceed along a set path. The Presiding Officer adopts a step by step approach and no legal proceeding is an open ended afffair. Embarking on a suit is like starting on a long journey. We feel that controversy regarding the representation of a party through a legal practitioner, be he simply a lawyer or an office bearer of the employers association, should be decided and concluded at the very earliest. The large body of judicial opinion of Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act indicates that employer's and workmen concentrate too much over whether a lawyer can represent one or the other rather than the real industrial dispute which is before the Labour Court for adjudication. This is indeed scathing indictment of a system which seeks to promote speedy industrial justice. Therefore, disputes over representation should be decided right at the outset if the parties are to prevent long litigation over the interpretation of Section 36 and applicability of these provisions to a given case.
A.D. Shastri vs S.D. Patil And Anr. on 22 November, 1973
33. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in A.D. Shastri v. S.D. Patil and Anr. 1975(I) I.L.J. 458 had held that an office bearer of a trade union who happens to be an Advocate had an absolute right to represent the union, clearly making no distinction between a legal practitioner simpliciter and legal practitioner who was an office bearer of the Union. A legal practitioner who was an office bearer would not be subject to restrictions imposed under Section 36(4) of the Act.
Associated Cement Companies Ltd. vs Associated Cement Staff Union And Anr. on 7 September, 2001
35. Likewise a Single Bench of the Bombay High Court in Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Associated Cement Staff Union and Anr. 2002 (92) FLR 148 also took a similar view. In this case the company was represented by the workmens Union. One of those persons was not even a legal practitioner, therefore, he was permitted to appear but the other legal practitioner also claimed to be a member of the Employer Federation of which the company was member. His representation was not permitted.