C.W.P No.15425 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.15425 of 2004 Date of Decision: 25.08.2009 Indrasan Prasad .....Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court-2, Faridabad and another ....Respondents Present: Ms. Abha Rathore, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Mutneja, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. This is a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Labour Court, Faridabad on 16.04.2004 filed by the workman objecting to the representation of the management through a legal practitioner, who was officer of the Federation of Employers. The objection had been raised by the workman on the basis that on earlier occasion in the same proceedings, a legal practitioner had entered appearance for the management and an objection was taken under Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that objection had been upheld. Subsequent to the order upholding the objection by the workman, the management, according to the workman, was deliberately engaging the services of a legal practitioner who was purported to be an office bearer of an Employers' Association called C.W.P No.15425 of 2004 -2- M/s Progressive Employers & Traders Association, Faridabad, which was a conglomerate of not merely the employers but also private individuals. The Labour Court had rejected the objection and an application filed to review the same was also disposed of rejecting the application by the order of the Labour Court on 16.04.2004. 2. Although learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made elaborate arguments with reference to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the decisions of several other Courts that interpreted Section 36(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, I do not propose to advert to all those decisions, in view of the fact that there is a Bench ruling of this Court with reference to the very same employer in respect of a situation appointing the legal practitioners of the very same association. The case has been reported in Radhey Shyam Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II 2003 (3) PLR 827. Although the learned counsel appearing for the workman referred to a decision of Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh in Andhra Pradesh Power Diploma Engineers' Association Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board and another 1995 LAB I.C. 2654 holding that phrase association of employers used in Section 36(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be applied to a association namely Federation of Chamber of Commerce and Industry consisting of not only employers as its members but a conglomeration of outsiders such as advocates. The Full Bench had ruled that such an association is not an association of employers under Section 36(2). In this case also, according to the counsel for petitioner, was a conglomerate of employers as well as private individual including advocates. I am C.W.P No.15425 of 2004 -3- bound by the decision of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court which while deciding the above case of Radhey Shyam Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II has referred in paragraph 4 that if a legal practitioner is an officer of an association of employers or a federation of such association, the bar contained under Section 36(4) of the Act could not be applicable. The representation of two lawyers Mr. S.S. Saini and Sh. N.S. Rajput as officers of M/s Progressive Employers & Traders Association, Faridabad are again the very same representatives in the case at hand as well. I do not think it is necessary to dilate on the academics of what the expression in Section 36(2) must mean when there is a direct answer to it by a judgment of this Hon'ble Court. 3. The writ petition is, under the circumstances, dismissed. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 25, 2009 Pankaj*