IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
RP No. 1209 of 2024 (JYOTI KUMAR Vs M/S ZYDUS HEALTHCARE LTD. AND OTHERS ) Dated : 09-12-2024
Shri Jyoti Kumar present in person
Shri Anurag Lakhotia with Shri Aditya Goyal for the respondent No.1 Shri Vinita Dwivedi - Panel lawyer for the respondents State. Heard on IA No. 10056 of 2024 , which is an application under Section 36(2) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 for permitting Mr Vimal Raghuvanshi to represent the petitioner before the Court.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 opposed the application referring t o Goa Antibiotics and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. R.K. Chawla and another reported in (2011) 15 SCC 449 raised the objection that in view of Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961, the application cannot be allowed. In Paradip Port Trust, Paradip Vs. Their Workmen reported in (1977) 2 SCC 339, the Apex Court has held that Special Act will prevail over the Advocates Act, 1961 which is a general piece of legislation with regard to subject matter of appearance of lawyers. Accordingly, on the reference of Section 32 o the Advocates Act, 1961 an objection raised does not stand. Perused the contents of IA No. 10056 of 2024 mentioned in paragraph-3 that petitioner workman authorized Mr Vimal Raghuvanshi to represent his case before High Court. The authority letter is enclosed with this application. In paragraph-4 of the application it is mentioned that a worker can get help for representation of his case by Trade Union or any workmen. Section 36(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is being reproduced as under :-
"36. Representation of parties.
1
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
"36. Representation of parties.
(1) A workman who is a party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented in any proceeding under this Act by-
(a) any member of the executive or other office bearer of a registered trade union of which he is a member ;
(b) any member of the executive or other office bearer of a federation of trade unions to which the trade union referred to in clause (a) is affiliated;
( c ) where the worker is not a member of any trade union, by any member of the executive or other office bearer of any trade union connected with, or by any other workman employed in, the industry in which the worker is employed and authorized in such manner as may be prescribed."
Neither the application nor the Authority Letter nor Affidavit of Jyoti Kumar discloses that Mr Vimal Raghuvanshi is a member of the executive or other office bearer of a registered Trade Union of which Jyoti Kumar is a member or Vimal Raghuvanshi is a member of the executive or other office bearer of a Federation of Trade Union to which the Trade Union referred in Clause - 'a' is affiliated or Vimal Raghuvanshi is a member of the executive or office bearer of any Trade Union connected with the Industry in which the Jyoti Kumar is employed. Accordingly, applicant is directed to explain the locus of Mr Vimal Raghuvanshi to represent the Jyoti Kumar in this case.
Matter be listed after four weeks'.
rashmi
2