1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6048 OF 2009 M/s. Perfect Stainless Steel Products .. Petitioner Vs Maharashtra Employees Union & Another .. Respondents R.L. Nerlekar for the petitioner Ashok D. Shetty & Rita K. Joshi for respondet no. 1 CORAM : Smt. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : 24th August, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner company and the learned counsel for the respondent union. 2. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally. Rma wp6048-09.sxw 2 3. Reference (IT) Nos. 24 of 2007, 35 of 2007 and 36 of 2007 were pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay. In all the said references, the company preferred an application to allow Mr. Nitin Thakur, their representative to represent them in all the said matters in whose favour company has executed power of attorney. It was also prayed that the company be allowed to be represented by Mr. Satyanarayan Hegde, Advocate in whose favour also the company has executed power of attorney. All the three applications came to be rejected by the Industrial Tribunal by order dated 29th April, 2009. Hence, this petition. 4. The tribunal relied on the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Paradip Port Trust, Paradip Vs Their Workmen, (1977) 2 Supreme Court Cases 339 which are as under : "A lawyer, simpliciter, cannot appear before an Industrial Tribunal without the consent of the opposite party and leave of the Tribunal merely by virtue of a power of attorney executed by a party. A lawyer can appear before the Tribunal in the capacity of an office- bearer of a registered trade union or an officer of associations of employers and no consent of the other side and leave of the Rma wp6048-09.sxw 3 Tribunal will, then, be necessary" Relying on the above observations, all the applications came to be rejected. However, it is seen that as far as one of the power of attorney holders i.e Advocate Mr. Satyanarayan Hegde is concerned , he is a lawyer and hence, it appears that reliance is placed on the above observations. However, as far as second person is concerned i.e Mr. Nitin Thakur, it is noticed that no reasoning has been furnished by the tribunal as to why prayer in respect of Mr. Nitin Thakur came to be rejected. On perusal of the order of the Tribunal, there is no reference of Mr. Thakur, also being a lawyer. In fact, as observed earlier, no reasoning is found in the impugned order in respect of Mr. Thakur. 5. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decision in case of Paradip Port Trust (Supra) has been considered in two later decisions i.e Management, Hindustan Motors Earth Moving Equipment Division Ltd Vs Vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chennai & Ors, 2007, I, CLR 967 and ICI India Ltd Vs Labour Court (IV) and another, 1992 - I L L N 972. He submitted that though the Rma wp6048-09.sxw 4 decision in case of Management, Hindustan Motors Earth Moving Equipment (Supra) was cited before the Tribunal and it has been referred in the judgment, the said decision has not been considered at all. On perusal of the impugned order, I find much merit in this submission as there is no discussion at all in the impugned order about this decision. Hence in my view, on both these counts, the order dated 29th April, 2009 deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 6. The Tribunal to hear the parties afresh and after considering the decisions in Management, Hindustan Motors Earth Moving Equipment (Supra) and ICI India Ltd (Supra) to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. All contentions of both sides are kept open. 7. Rule made absolute in above terms. (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J) Rma wp6048-09.sxw 5 Rma wp6048-09.sxw