IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 12TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 31747 of 2005(D) -------------------------- ID.23/2000 of LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ S. ANILKUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS, SON OF P. SIVARAMAN, PUTHEN VEEDU, ASRAMAM NORTH WARD, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM. 2. QUILON AUTOMOBILE EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.Q.797, KADAMPANADU P.O., ADOOR-691 552, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.SIJU KAMALASANAN FOR R2 SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR FOR R2 GOVT. PLEADER SMT. N. SUDHA DEVI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 31747 of 2005 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 3rd September, 2008. J U D G M E N T While I.D.No. 54/1996 was pending before the Labour Court, Kollam, the petitioner in this writ petition, who was the workman therein, was dismissed from service after conducting an enquiry. Alleging violation of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, which was numbered as I.D.No. 23/2000. When that I.D came up, the petitioner herein raised a contention that the management in the I.D cannot be permitted to be represented by a lawyer since the union is not represented by a lawyer. By Ext. P4, the Labour Court permitted the management to be represented by a lawyer. That order is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. I had granted stay of further proceedings in that I.D in this writ petition. While so, the Labour Court passed award in I.D.No. 54/1996, which was challenged before me by the Union in W.P(C) No. 32425/2004. I quashed the award in that I.D by judgment dated 17- 6-2008 and directed re-adjudication of that I.D along with I.D.No. 23/2000. In that judgment, I directed the Labour Court to pass fresh award within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On receipt of the said judgment, the Labour Court informed the registry that there is stay of further proceedings in I.D.23/2000 in this writ petition and therefore further directions may be issued in that regard. It is under the above circumstances, this writ petition comes up for hearing before me. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The only issue involved in this writ petition is as to whether the management can be permitted to have the services of an advocate in conducting the I.D. From the award in I.D.No. 54/1996, I find that in that I.D, the management was permitted to engage an advocate and W.P.C. No. 31747/2005 -: 2 :- the advocate actually conducted the I.D. Since I had directed that both these I.Ds be adjudicated together, there is no point in further considering the validity of Ext. P1 order in I.D.No. 23/2000. Accordingly, I close this writ petition with the observation that the advocate appearing in I.D.No. 54/1996 can represent the management in I.D.No. 23/2000 also. In view of the fact that more than two months have elapsed since I passed the judgment in W.P(C) No. 32425/2004, I direct that the awards in both the I.Ds shall be passed within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.