9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Right of advocates to appear before a Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. Constitutionality of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 3. Validity of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act under Article 14 of the Constitution. Detailed Analysis: 1. Right of advocates to appear before a Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act: The primary issue is whether advocates have a right to appear before a Tribunal constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act (Act 14 of 1947). The second appellant, a company, had a dispute with its employees referred to the Industrial Tribunal by the Government of Madras. The first appellant, an advocate, sought to represent the company but was denied permission by the Tribunal, leading to the appeal. Relevant statutory provisions include Sections 9(1) and 14(1)(a), (b), and (c) of the Indian Bar Councils Act (Act XXXVIII of 1926) and Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Act XIV of 1947). Section 14(1) of the Bar Councils Act entitles an advocate to practice before any court or tribunal, subject to existing laws. Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act stipulates that a party may be represented by a legal practitioner only with the consent of the other parties and the leave of the Tribunal. The court concluded that the right of an advocate to appear before a Tribunal is subject to any law in force, and Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act qualifies as such a law. Therefore, the Tribunal's refusal to permit the first appellant to appear was not open to attack. 2. Constitutionality of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution: The appellants argued that the restriction imposed by Section 36(4) infringes on the fundamental right to practice any profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. They contended that while qualifications for enrolment as an advocate could be justified under Article 19(6), the restriction in Section 14(1)(b) of the Bar Councils Act was absolute and excessive. The court examined the nature of the right to practice law, referencing both English and American legal principles. It concluded that the right to practice is not absolute but a privilege or franchise regulated by statutes. The right to appear before tribunals is subject to the terms of the statutes that establish them. Thus, the right to practice law is limited by Section 14(1)(b) of the Bar Councils Act, which is subject to any law in force, including Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The court further held that Article 19(1)(g) protects rights that a person already possesses under the law and does not create new rights. Therefore, the first appellant's right to appear before the Tribunal is subject to Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which requires the consent of the other parties. 3. Validity of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act under Article 14 of the Constitution: The appellants also argued that Section 36(4) is discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. They claimed that while litigants in civil courts have the right to be represented by counsel, parties before a Tribunal do not, constituting discrimination. The court stated that Article 14 does not forbid classification if it is based on relevant differences. Courts and tribunals differ significantly in their procedures and functions. Tribunals, which are often arbitral bodies, are not bound by strict procedural rules and have more procedural freedom. Therefore, the special rule for tribunals is not discriminatory. The court also addressed the argument that Section 36(4) is unreasonable because it allows one party to prevent the other from engaging counsel. The rationale behind this provision is to prevent inequality, as employers might afford eminent counsel while laborers might not. Although this provision might result in hardship, it is a matter for the Legislature to consider and does not render the section unconstitutional. In conclusion, both contentions raised by the appellants were overruled, and the appeal was dismissed without costs.
|
