IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21286 of 1999 Between: Chairman, Andhra Bhoomi, Secunderabad represented by its Assistant General Manager K.Prabhakar, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, R/o. Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.D.Chary, C/o. P.V.Ramana Rao, Guntur. 2 P.V.Ramana Rao, Guntur. 3 The Labour Court, Guntur, rep. by its Presiding Officer. Guntur. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari after calling for the records relating to the order in I.A.No.158/99 in I.D.No.151/96 dt.9-8-99 on the ﬁle of the Labour Court, Guntur and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.PANDURANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21286 OF 1999 ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by the petitioner, management of Andhra Bhoomi Daily Newspaper, questioning the order dated 09.08.1999 passed in I.A.No.158 of 1999 in I.D.No.151 of 1996 on the file of Labour Court, Guntur. 2. The 1st respondent herein is the petitioner in I.D.No.151 of 1996 before the Labour Court, Guntur. In the said I.D., the 2nd respondent herein, who was an employee of the petitioner organization, was representing the 1st respondent-workman as an authorized representative. It appears, subsequently, the 2nd respondent left the petitioner organization and started practicing as an Advocate. As much as the 2nd respondent is not in service of the petitioner organization and is no more a co-employee of the 1st respondent, the petitioner-management ﬁled I.A.No.158 of 1999 in I.D.No.151 of 1996 before the Labour Court raising an objection for the 2nd respondent representing the 1st respondent. By the impugned order, dated 09.08.1999, the Labour Court dismissed the said application, holding that since the 2nd respondent herein was employed with the management as on the date of ﬁling of the I.D., he is entitled to represent the 1st respondent-workman. 3. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that as the 2nd respondent has left the service of the petitioner organization and has not been employed with the petitioner organization, he cannot be said to be a co-employee within the meaning of Section 36 (I) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for brevity ‘the I.D. Act’) and cannot be permitted to represent the 1st respondent-workman. 4. Though the respondents are served, there is no appearance on their behalf before this Court. 5. As per Section 36 of the I.D. Act, a workman, who is a party to a dispute, shall be entitled to be represented in any proceedings under the Act by any other workman employed in the industry in which the worker is employed and authorized in such manner as may be prescribed. When it is the case of the management that the 2nd respondent is not the employee of the petitioner organization and he left the service of the said organization, the application could not have been dismissed by the Labour Court merely on the ground that he was an employee of the petitioner organization on the date of filing of the I.D. 6. From a reading of Section 36 of the I.D. Act, it is clear that a working co-employee with the same management is permitted to represent any workman. Merely because the 2nd respondent was an employee of the petitioner organization on the date of ﬁling of the I.D., that itself is not a ground to permit him to represent the 1st respondent-workman in the I.D. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that as the 2nd respondent was employed in the petitioner organization on the date of I.D., he can represent the workman, will run contrary to the very object and intendment of the provision referred above. 7. In that view of the matter, I set aside the impugned order, dated 09.08.1999, passed in I.A.No.158 of 1999 in I.D.No.151 of 1996 on the ﬁle of Labour Court, Guntur, and consequently, the I.A.No.158 of 1999 shall stand allowed. However, it is made clear that it is open for the 1st respondent-workman to select any other co-employee, who is presently working with the management, if he so chooses, for being represented by the said co-employee before the Labour Court. 8. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY 25th August, 2008 IBL