IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31747 of 2005(D)
1. S. ANILKUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. QUILON AUTOMOBILE EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE
For Petitioner :SRI.H.B.SHENOY
For Respondent :SRI.SIJU KAMALASANAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :03/09/2008
O R D E R
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.