Case Title: T
hyssen Krupp Industries India Private Limited & Ors. V. Suresh Maruti Chougule & Ors.
Date of Order:
4th October, 2023
Bench:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
Parties:
Petitioner: Thyssen Krupp Industries India Private Limited & Ors.
Respondent: Suresh Maruti Chougule & Ors.
SUBJECT
The court held that the case should not be examined from the perspective of the attorney, but rather from that of the employer and employees, who, according to the aforementioned judgment, are the main parties involved in an industrial dispute.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961- Right of advocates to practise
OVERVIEW
- The current matter came before this Bench as a result of the order made on August 21, 2019, by a bench of two judges, who held that the judgment in Paradip Port Trust, Paradip vs. Their Workmen (1977) 2 SCC 339, rendered by a three-judge panel of this court, needs to be given another look.
ISSUES RAISED
The issue is whether the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, dealing with the aspects of representation by either of the parties through a specific lawyer and limitation put thereon, needs to be re-looked.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- Learned counsel for the appellants has made an effort to draw attention to the fact that the appellants, in a move that was not previously done, have challenged the constitutional validity of some provisions, that attorneys have been added as parties.
- The legislature's arbitrary creation of the provisions and/or the legislation's implementation will lead to discrimination.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The court decided that they agreed with the stance taken in the Paradip Port Trust case.
- As was stressed, the case should not be examined from the perspective of the attorney, but rather from that of the employer and employees, who, according to the aforementioned judgment, are the main parties involved in an industrial dispute.
- The court did not see any reason to reevaluate the legal doctrine that has been in place for close to fifty years.
CONCLUSION
The fact that a lawyer previously practiced law or has a law degree will not prevent a company or corporation from having him represent them if he is appointed as an officer, is paid by the company or corporation, is subject to its control, and is not a practicing advocate. Again, even if he is a lawyer, a trade union official or member of its executive will be allowed to speak on behalf of the workers before the tribunal. The attorney in the aforementioned two cases will not act in the capacity of a lawyer, but rather as an officer of the association in the case of the employer and an office-bearer of the union in the case of the workers.
