n- ^' <-'.. 31UE- HON':Br-E HK3H: COaRT OE- JUDICATURE A'E. 'Bir.AsmR _ HISC. WBIT PETITION N0 M^ / 2001 PETITIONER RESPOmENTS JILA VANOPAJ SAHKABI SANG MABYADIT BHANOPRATAPPOR THBOUGH PEABHANDH SANCHALAK DISTT. KANKEB (C.G-.). 1. ABVIND SONKAR, S/o. SHRI GANGARAM SONKAK, R/o. DEVENDRA CYCI.E STORES, N&BDAI CHOWK, DISTT. RAJBANDGAON (C.G-). 2 -^ PBESIDIBG OFFICEB, LABOHR COURT, DISTT. RAJNANDGAON (C.G.). 3. DIVISIONAL FOBEST OFFICER (REGOLAE), FOREST DIVISION, BHANUPBATAPPUB, DISTT. KANKER (C.G.). PETITION UNDEB AKTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOE THE ISSUANCE OF WEIT IN THE.NATORE OF UANDAMAS AND ANY OTHEB DIBECTION OK OEDEB AS DEEMED FIT. 'lfi') HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SiNGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AQNIHOTRI. J. r'ti^''~:'i-;"^'^'<.';- !s'3SF^'<-a»"BiSSS9 WRIT PETITION N0.464 OF 2001 Petitioner yersus ResBondente Jila VanopaJ'Sahkari Sang Maryadit Bhanupratappur Arvind Sonkar and others Present : Mr. Pradeep Saxena, counsel Tor the petitioner. Mr. H.B.Agrawa!, Senior Advocate with Mr. lUlanish Agrawal, counsei for respondent No.1 . Mr. A.S.Kachhawaha, Government Advocate for respondent No.S/Stete. ORDER (Passed on 20° of November, 2006) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submjts that the request of the petitioner (non-applicant) to engags services of a", Advocate was rejectect by the impugned order dated 1-12-2000 (Annsxure P-1), when respondent No.1 (applicant) was permitted to appear before ths Labour Court through an Advocate, who happened to be a union representative. 2. On perusa! of the papers, it appears that the Labour Court has not followed basic principies of law to the extent that if a party is represented through an Advocate.who has expertiss in !aw, the other party cannot be denied the opportunity of having assistance of a legal ,rf8^ fgss^ss^ practitioner, i.e., Advocate. This amounts to clear violation of right to equality before law enshrined in Articles 14 and 18 of the Constitution of india. 3. Thus, the impugned order dated 1-12-2000 (Annexur®P- 1) desewes to be sef aside and is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is ailowed. The matter is remitted back to the Labour Court for granting permission to the petitioner (non-applicant) to engage services of a legal practitioner when respondent No.1. (applicant) is represented through an Advocate. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Gopa!