The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
''To issue a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records connected with the common orders passed by the 3rd respondent on 21.03.2014 in I.A.No.123 of 2013 in C.P.No.121 of 2012 and in I.A.No.46 of 2014 in I.D.No.53 of 2013 and quash the same and further direct the 3rd respondent to permit Thiru. I.S.Pushparaj as an Authorised representative to appear on behalf of the petitioner in all the proceedings in connection with C.P.No.121 of 2012 and I.D.No.53 of 2013''.
2.The case of the petitioner is as follows:
The petitioner was appointed as Comptist on 12.05.1983 in the first respondent/Management. On the basis of certain allegations against him, he came to be dismissed from service on 08.08.2012. He raised Industrial Dispute against the order of dismissal in I.D.No.53 of 2013 and the same was taken up on the file of the third respondent/ Labour Court for adjudication. The petitioner had also filed a computation petition in C.P No.121 of 2012, for certain financial benefits which are payable to him. The petitioner was engaged the service of one I.S.Pushparaj, who was a retired employee of the first respondent/Management, to represent him in the proceedings before the Conciliation Officer and also before the Labour Court in respect of the pending Industrial Dispute and the computation petition.
3.The Management filed their counter before the Labour Court, in I.D.No.53 of 2013, wherein, they have raised an objection regarding the engagement of I.S.Pushparaj, ex-employee of the Management, to represent the petitioner in the proceedings. According to the Management, he was a retired employee and was not a member of any executive or Office Bearer of any Union connected with the Management. Hence, he cannot represent validly before the proceedings in the Labour Court, in terms of
Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It would be appropriate to extract Rule 36, which reads as under:
''36.Representation of parties-(1)A workman who is a party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented in any proceeding under this Act by
(a)any member of the executive or other office bearer of a registered trade union of which he is a member,
(b)any member of the executive or other office bearer of a federation of trade unions to which the trade union referred to in clause(a) is affiliated,
(c)Where the worker is not a member of any trade union, by(any member of the executive or other office bearer) of any trade union connected with, or by any other workman employed in, the industry in which the worker is employed and authorised in such manner as may be prescribed.
(2)An employer who is a party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented in any proceeding under this Act by-
(a)an officer of an association of employers of which he is a member,
(b)an officer of a federation of associations of employers to which the association referred to in clause(a) is affiliated,
(c)where the employer is not a member of any association of employers, by an officer of any association of employers connected with, or by any other employer engaged in, the industry in which the employer is engaged and authorised in such manner as may be prescribed.
(3)No party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner in any conciliation proceedings under this Act or in any proceedings before a Court.
(4)In any proceedings before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, a party to a dispute may be represented by a legal practitioner with the consent of the other parties to the proceedings and with the leave of the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be.
4.According to the Management, the engagement of the said I.S.Pushparaj, does not fulfil any of the conditions, mentioned above and therefore, such authorisation by the petitioner herein is invalid and the said I.S.Pushparaj cannot be allowed to represent the workmen in the proceedings pending before the Labour Court. The third respondent/Labour Court vide its letter dated 21.03.2014 has held that the said I.S.Pushparaj is incompetent to represent the workmen in both the Computation petition in C.P.No.121 of 2012 and Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.53 of 2013. The third respondent/Labour Court had agreed with the contentions putforth by the Management that in terms of
Section 36 of the I.D. Act, the said I.S.Pushparaj's authorisation cannot be a valid authorisation and he is not competent in law to represent the workman. The said order passed by the third respondent/Labour Court is under challenge before this Court.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner/workman would contend that since the Employees Union has already engaged the said I.S.Pushparaj, to represent the workman in the proceedings before the Labour Court, by virtue of such authorisation, the said I.S.Pushparaj became competent enough to represent the workman before the Labour Court. He would submit that the intention of the Management when they objected to the appearance of I.S.Pushparaj, on behalf of the workman, is something else as the Management felt little uncomfortable when they had to deal with the said I.S.Pushparaj, since he was originally an Office Bearer when he was in service and only to avoid him, they had invoked
Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
6.What ever be the reason behind the Management's decision to oppose the engagement of I.S.Pushparaj to represent the workman, the objection has to be primarily viewed within the frame work of the statutory provisions de-hors the intention of the parties.
7.In the instant case,
Section 36 as extracted supra is very clear and it is also admitted position that I.S.Pushparaj, who was a retired employee and was not holding any position in the Union, cannot validly represent the workman in the proceedings before the Labour Court. When there is a statutory embargo, in the present case, mere participation of the said I.S.Pushparaj in the conciliation proceedings cannot give him any authority to represent the workman in the proceedings before the Labour Court.
8.It is needless to mention that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are incorporated within certain limitations by the framers of the law, for smooth functioning of both labour and Management and for Industrial peace.
9.In view of the above, it is not for this Court to read any other meaning into
Section 36, which is otherwise not found in the said Section.
Section 36 is very clear and express and this Court cannot give any other interpretation.
10. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that there is no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner and therefore, the present writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
15.09.2017 Index:Yes/No dn To
1.The Management Southern Petro Chemical Industries Corporation Ltd., (SPIC), No.88, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.
2.The Management of Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd., Tuticorin.
3.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Thiruvelveli.
V.PARTHIBAN, J.
dn W.P.No.13527 of 2014 15.09.2017