1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.P.(MD)No.631 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 The National Horticultural Research Development Foundation, Through its Director, 54, Pandiyan Nagar, Dindigul Now office shifted to 27/52, First Floor, Chinthamani Pudur, Trichy Road, Coimbatore. ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs. 1.P.Murugesan 2.The Presiding Officer, The labour Court, Trichy. ... Respondents/Respondents Prayer: The Writ Appeal is filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent Act, against the order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.5239 of 2010 dated 12.07.2010. Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.5239 of 2010: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the recors pertaining to the order passed by the second respondent in I.A.No.457/2009 in C.P.No.20/2009, dated 05.02.2010 and quash the same. For Appellant : Mr.V.O.S.Kalaiselvam For Respondents : Mr.P.Murugesan (party in person) JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.JYOTHIMANI,J.) In a dispute raised in the claim petition filed by the 1st respondent before the Labour Court, it appears that the present appellant through counsel has entered appearance. That was objected to by the 1st respondent by filing an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.457 of 2009 under Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act (herein after called the Act) to the effect that the management is not entitled to appear through counsel without the specific consent of the workman. That application filed by the workman came to be allowed by the Labour Court, against which, the management filed Writ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 petition in W.P.(MD)No.5239 of 2010 and that Writ petition came to be dismissed by order dated 12.07.2010, against which, the present Writ Appeal is filed. 2. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that after the notification under Section 30 of the Advocates Act, in any Tribunal or in any forum, any Advocate has got a right to appear and therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge has to be set aside, since the management has got a right to appear through counsel. 3. We do not agree with the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. Hence, we are of the considered view that in respect of allowing to appear an Advocate in any forum one has to consider about the object of the Act. Therefore, it is for the Labour Court to decide ultimately, if it is the case of the appellant that Section 30 of the Act has been notified. It is also relevant to point out that the management has not raised any of such plea either in the grounds of appeal or in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ petition. 4.In view of the same, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. If the management is of the view that it is entitled to appear as per the change in law, it is for the management to make necessary application before the Labour Court. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps.are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Presiding Officer, The labour Court, Trichy. +1 CC to Mr.P.Murugesan, Party-in-Person (SR.No.27340) W.A.(MD)No.631 of 2011 10.08.2011 nbj NSV/5.9.2011/2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/