XJ THE HON'JBLE HIGH GOUKT OE" jaT>IC:ATUKE A'E. 'Bir.AS'E'UR - >lf6IL MISC. WBIT PETITION N0.' / 2001 PETITIONER IBBSB& 2ESPOBDENTS JILA VANOPAJ SAHKARI SANGH MABYADIT BHANBPBATAPPOR THEOUGH PBABHABDH SANCHAf.AK DXSTT. KANKEB (C.G-). ^ POONARAM YADAV, S/o. SHBI SAM&BUBAM YADAV, R/o. KODHIKHANA KOAD, ^ BASANTPUR, DISTT. RAJN&NDGAOB (C.G-). PEESIDING OFFICEB, LABOUR COUKT, DISTT. BAJN&NDG&ON (C.G.). 3. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICEK (REGOLAR), FOBEST DIVISION, BHANUPBATAPPUB, DISTT. KANKER (C.G.). !1JT ^ A^ PETITION UNDEE ABTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITOTION OE'INDIA FOE THE ISSOANGE OF NBIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMAS AND ANY OTHER DIBECTION OR OBDEB AS DEEMED FIT. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SiNGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI. J^ dv ^y WRBLPETITSON N0.465 OF 2001 Petitioner versus Respondents Jila Vanopaj Sahkari Sangh Maryadit Bhanupratappur Poonaram Yadav and others Present : Mr. Pradeep Saxena, counsel for the petttioner. Mr. H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.1 . Mr. A.S.Kachhawaha, Govemment Advocate for respondent No.3/State. ORDER (Passed on 20"' of November, 2006) Learned counset appearing for the petitioner submits that the requsst of the petitioner (non-applicant) to engags services of an Advocate was rejected by the impugned order dated 1-12-2000 (Annexure P-1), when respondent No.1 (applicant) was permitted to appear before the Labour Court through an Advocate, who happened to be a union representative. 2. On perusal of the papers, it appeare that the Labour Court has not followed basic principles of law to the extent that if a party is represented through an Advocate, who has expertise in law, the other party cannot be densed the opportunity of having assistance of a legai i p practitioner, i.e., Advocate. This amounts to clear violation of right to equality before law enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 ofthe Constitution of India. 3. Thus, the impugned order dated 1-12-2000 (Annsxure P- 1) deserves to be set aside and is accordingiy set aside. The writ petition is ailowed. The matier is remitted back to the Labour Court for granting permission to the petitioner (non-applicant) to engage services of a legai practitioner when respondent No.1 (applicant) is represented through an Advocate. No order as to cosl—----- -------- - -- Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sopai ..^ausgg^Ba