IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 18.03.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.NO.1136 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 South Arcot Vallalar District Mazdoor Union, Nellikuppam, rep by its General Secretary, N.Rajendiran, 1/300,Main Road, Melpattambakkam, Cuddalore District. .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore. 2.M/s.Parry's Confectionary Limited, Nellikuppam, rep by its General Manager 3.M/s.Lotte India Corporation Limited, Nellikuppam. .. Respondents This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records and papers from the files of the 1st respondent in I.D. No.42 of 2005 and quash the order made in I.A. No.45 of 2008 in I.D. No.42 of 2005, dated 12.8.2010. For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Ramesh For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Gopalan & Co for R-3 ORDER The petitioner is a Trade Union. They have come forward to challenge an interim order passed by the first respondent Labour Court, Cuddalore in I.A.No.45 of 2008 in I.D.No.42 of 2005, dated 12.08.2010. 2.When the writ petition came up for admission on 21.1.2011, this Court directed private notice to be issued to second and third respondents. Accordingly, notices have been served. They are represented by their counsel. The petitioner union raised an industrial dispute which ultimately was referred for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ adjudication by the first respondent Labour Court vide Government Order in G.O.(D)No.216, Labour and Employment Department, dated 21.12.2005. The said reference was taken on file by the first respondent Labour Court as I.D.No.42 of 2005. 3.The petitioner Union filed a claim statement, dated 29.8.2005. On behalf of the respondents, M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co., had filed vakalath. As soon as vakalath was filed to appear on behalf of the respondents by a legal practitioner, the petitioner had filed an objection memo, dated 29.8.2005 asking the Labour Court to reject the valalath on the ground that they did not give consent for filing vakalath and permitting the respondents to be represented by the legal counsel. For the said memo, the respondents filed an objection statement stating that vakalath was filed for respondents on 25.4.2005. Thereafter, when the matter was posted during the months of May, July and August, no objection was raised. Therefore, it was not open to them to raise such a belated objection. 4.In the meanwhile, on behalf of the respondents, a counter statement, dated 15.9.2005 was filed. Once again on behalf of respondents, an authorisation memo, dated 18.2.2008 was filed under Section 36(2)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In that authorisation memo, Mr.T.S.Gopalan, a Committee Member of Employer's Federation of Southern India, of which the second respondent was the member, was authorised to appear in respect of the dispute. Once again, the petitioner union had raised an objection for the memo, for which a counter affidavit was also filed by the second respondent justifying the appearance through an authorised representative. In order to prove that Mr.T.S.Gopalan was the office bearer of the Employer's Federation of Southern India (EFSI), a witness by name V.Shankar who was the Chief Executive of the EFSI was examined. Subsequently, the Company Secretary of the second respondent was examined. He was also cross examined by the petitioner union. The objection petition filed by the petitioner was taken on file as I.A.No.45 of 2008. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the Labour Court by its order, dated 12.8.2010 had rejected the objection made by the petitioner union. It held that Mr.T.S.Gopalan, a member of the EFSI was entitled to represent. It is this order which is under challenge in this writ petition. 5.In normal circumstances, the order passed by the Labour Court should have been given quietus in the larger interest of the workmen. It must be seen that the dispute was referred to the Labour Court during the year 2005 and that from the date of reference, more than five years have elapsed. It is rather unfortunate that the dispute is not allowed to be completed on the technical question as to who should represent the management. The petitioner union has filed the present writ petition contending that the order of the Labour Court made in the I.A was illegal and that Mr.T.S.Gopalan being the legal practitioner cannot be said to be an officer of the federation of associations of employers to which the association referred to in clause (a) of Section 36(2) is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ affiliated. Even in respect of Section 36(2)(c), a legal practitioner who is not an employee of the employer cannot be an officer. Therefore, the order was illegal. 6.A reference was made to a larger bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court made in L.P.A.No.250 of 2009 in C.W.P.No.4332 of 2007, dated 13.11.2009 in a case relating to Hygienice Foods Malerkotia Road, Khanna, District Ludhiana Vs. Jasbir Singh and others. In that case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had disagreed with the judgment made by this court in Management, Hindustan Motors Earth Moving Equipment Division Ltd., Thiruvallore Vs. Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai and others reported in 2007 (2) LLJ 59, which view was confirmed by a division bench of this Court in R.Rajamani Vs. Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai and another reported in 2007 (2) LLJ 704. 7.In the first case, this court held that the management was entitled to engage a legal practitioner and that the belated plea of the employee cannot allowed to be raised. It was also held that if the trade union was engaging a trained lawyer, then certainly a consent required under Section 36(4) of the other party to engage a lawyer cannot be withheld. In the division bench judgment cited in R.Rajamani's case, the question of engagement of an office bearer of an employer's association when objected to by the workmen was rejected. This Court held that even if a representative is a legal practitioner, he can represent the said employer. 8.Though the larger bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court had disagreed with the view taken by this court, this court is not willing to take a different view than the view taken by this Court in the case cited supra. This writ petition is liable to be dismissed on more than one ground. Firstly, this court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition against the preliminary order passed by the Labour Court on an issue which is not even directly connected with the dispute raised by the workmen. Secondly, when Mr.T.S.Gopalan had filed vakalath, the petitioner had objected to his appearance as a lawyer. Thereafter, when a memo was filed, an objection was raised long thereafter and it is not conducive for smooth conducting of the Industrial Dispute. Thirdly, there is no reason to disagree with a view taken by this court. 9.In the light of the above, this writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ vvk To The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore. 1 cc to M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co, Advocate, Sr.No.19561 1 cc to Mr.K.M.Ramesh, Advocate, Sr.No.19393 ORDER IN W.P.NO.1136 of 2011 VG {CO} TP/5.4.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/