Read Time: 05 minutes
A reference was made following an passed on August 21, 2019 by a bench of two judges who held that the judgment of three judges’ bench of this court in 'Paradip Port Trust, Paradip vs Their Workmen' (1977) is required to be re-looked
The Supreme Court has declined to have a re-look at its 1977 judgement in case of 'Paradip Port Trust, Paradip vs Their Workmen' with regard to applicability of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, dealing with the aspects of representation by either of the parties through a specific lawyer and limitation put thereupon.
"We really find no ground to revisit the well settled position of law which has prevailed for almost half a century," a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C T Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia said.
A reference was made following an passed on August 21, 2019 by a bench of two judges who held that the judgment of three judges’ bench of this court in 'Paradip Port Trust, Paradip vs Their Workmen' (1977) is required to be re-looked.
The judgement had then allowed a legal practitioner then appointed as officer of a company, though not practising as an advocate, to represent either the company or the employees union in proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The court had then also held, "The Industrial Disputes Act is a special piece of legislation with the avowed aim of labour welfare and representation before adjudicatory authorities therein has been specifically provided for with a clear object in view. This special Act will prevail over the Advocates Act which is a general piece of legislation with regard to the subject-matter of appearance of lawyers before all courts, tribunals and other authorities. The Industrial Disputes Act is concerned with representation by legal practitioners under certain conditions only before the authorities mentioned under the Act."
Answering the reference, the bench said, "As emphasised (previously in 1977), the matter is not to be reviewed from the point of view of the legal practitioner but from the aspect of the employer and workmen who are the principal contestants in an industrial dispute as observed in the aforesaid judgment."
The bench also rejected a connected writ petition challenging validity of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
"Merely because it is sought to be given a colour of a constitutional challenge to a provision makes no difference. We may also say that the constitutional challenge has to be examined within a very narrow compass and certainly those parameters are not satisfied," the bench said.
Case Title: THYSSEN KRUPP INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. Vs. SURESH MARUTI CHOUGULE & ORS
Please Login or Register
