During the course of this case, Thyssen dismissed a welder from its work in 2015 for demonstrations of improper behaviour. The matter was at first heard before a placation official and afterward in reference under the guidance of a labor court in Pune. An application was documented by the welder under section 36(4) of the ID Act, protesting Thyssen’s commitment of an advocate, which was permitted by the labor court.
Thyssen’s side contended that on the grounds that modern arbitration is turning out to be progressively convoluted, workers/organizations can’t address their cases successfully under the guidance of a labor court, and hence the help of a prepared advocate is important. Despite what might be expected, the advocate for the welder contended that the option to specialize in legal matters is certainly not a principal, vested, or a lawful right, along these lines a gathering can’t case an option to connect with an advocate.
- The solicitor expressed that it is an organization appropriately acknowledged under the arrangements of the Companies Act, 1956 and is a current organization inside the regulations of Section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013.
- The solicitor presented that the respondent worker was delegated as a Welder with the candidate with effect from 1 April, 2001.
- The solicitor further expressed that the respondent was dismissed from administrations with effect from 24 August, 2015 for demonstrations of offense, subsequent to observing fair treatment of law.
- The petitioner went against and presented that the complaint raised by the respondent ought to be dismissed. The petitioner depended upon Section 30 of the Advocates Act and presented that Section 30 of the Advocates Act has come into power from 15 June 2011, thus no protest can be raised to commitment of a supporter by the applicant. Such a complaint is raised distinctly to pester the applicant. This is only a coercive strategy and the first respondent is pressuring the candidate into out of court settlement. When Section 30 of the Advocates Act has been brought into power, then, at that point the promoter drew in by the candidate can’t be kept from addressing the solicitor. Consequently, the protest ought to be dismissed.
- The respondent brought up the objection that the solicitor before them is an organization and it has connected with an advocate for leading the court proceedings. That was objected with by the first respondent. The first respondent brought up that the law doesn’t allow connecting with an advocate by the solicitor. The law is clear in the sense no one has a privilege to designate an advocate. Consequently, the solicitor ought not be permitted to connect with an advocate, even more when the first respondent – labourer is directing the court proceedings himself.
- It was the contention of first party that according to Section 30 of the Advocates Act an advocate whose name is entered in the State Roll will be qualified for as of right to rehearse towards the domain to which this Act expands.
Principle/ Ratio decidendi:
- Section 29 of the Advocates Act, 1961 states that advocates are the only recognised section of people entitled to practice law. The rules and regulations enlisted in this Section clearly state that it is only advocates who are allowed to practice law in the Union of India and any other person doing the same will be entitled to punishment under the law.
- Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 enlists the rights that every advocate in the Union of India is entitled to.
The advocates are entitled with the following rights to practice in our country:
- They may practice in all the courts present in the country, including the Supreme Court.
- They are allowed to practice before any tribunal or person who is legally authorized or permitted to collect evidence,
- They are allowed to practice before any other authority or person before whom such advocate is by or under any law for the time being in force entitled to practice.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the contention by Thyssen concerning the established legitimacy of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act), which confines the presence of advocates in labor courts, tribunals and national tribunals, and held that there is a lawful qualification between the right of an advocate to specialize in law ensured by Sections 29 and 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the right to be present and address an official courtroom or court.
The Bombay High Court held that there is a lawful qualification between a right of an advocate to specialize in legal matters, ensured by Sections 29 and 30 of the Advocates Act, and the right to show up and address an official courtroom or council. The writer is therefore of the opinion that the right to practice allowed by the Advocates Act doesn’t give on a litigant the option to be addressed by a specific advocate and just assumes that a defendant is qualified for being addressed by a lawyer if essential. Further, the writer feels that the right to practice is arguably not a blatant right yet just confined in nature.
Limits and checks can be put on a right by endorsing dress for lawyers or in some other way. It was seen that as a defendant doesn’t have a key right to be addressed by a legal counselor in any court, it is hard to acknowledge the contention that Section 36(4) of the ID Act is unlawful, and ultra vires articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of India.
Edited by: Pervez Sadiq Rahman
College name: Christ University, Bangalore (3rd Sem)
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Thyssen Krupp Industries India Private Limited vs Suresh Maruti Chougule, Union of India, Bar Council of India & Ors. Writ Petition No. 7755 of 2017 with Civil Application Stamp No. 33077 of 2017
Justice S.C. Dharmadhikari and Justice Bharati H. Dangre.
1st March, 2018.