Hon'ble High Court of Orissa Rejects Petition
The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa has rejected the petition of M/s Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd for the engagement of legal counsel in an industrial dispute matter. The court found that there is an impediment in engaging a legal practitioner, and it cannot be said that the Legislature has legislated the provision of Section 36(4) merely for formality.
Case Overview: M/s Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs. Labour Court
In the matter of M/s Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd versus the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, and another (W.P.(C) No.13843 of 2016) on 10.8.2016, the court held that the constitutional validity of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act is under consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Paradip Port Trust, Paradip vs. Their Workmen, delivered by a larger bench consisting of three judges, still holds the field.
Court's Interpretation of Section 36(4)
The court emphasized that the provision of the enactment must be followed in its strict sense. After reviewing the provisions of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the court determined that there is an impediment in engaging a legal practitioner. It is settled that if anything has been incorporated by the Legislature by way of legislation, there must be a purpose behind it, and it cannot be considered redundant. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the court is to ensure that the order is in accordance with the statute. After appreciating the factual aspects and legal position, the court found no infirmity in the impugned order.
Review and Revision Powers
Regarding the order dated 30.7.2016, it is a settled proposition that the power of review, revision, or appeal is a creation of statute. There is no provision in the Industrial Disputes Act that confers power to the adjudicator to review its own order. Applying this principle, the Labour Court rightly refused to review or recall the order dated 26.3.2016 by passing the order dated 30.7.2016.
Conclusion
After discussing the facts and legal position, the court concluded that there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, dated 26.3.2016 and 30.7.2016 in I.D. Case No.4 of 2015. Accordingly, the court declined to interfere with the same, and the writ petition was dismissed.
From India, Bhubaneswar
Acknowledge(1)
Amend(0)
5The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa has rejected the petition of M/s Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd for the engagement of legal counsel in an industrial dispute matter. The court found that there is an impediment in engaging a legal practitioner, and it cannot be said that the Legislature has legislated the provision of Section 36(4) merely for formality.
Case Overview: M/s Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs. Labour Court
In the matter of M/s Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd versus the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, and another (W.P.(C) No.13843 of 2016) on 10.8.2016, the court held that the constitutional validity of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act is under consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Paradip Port Trust, Paradip vs. Their Workmen, delivered by a larger bench consisting of three judges, still holds the field.
Court's Interpretation of Section 36(4)
The court emphasized that the provision of the enactment must be followed in its strict sense. After reviewing the provisions of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the court determined that there is an impediment in engaging a legal practitioner. It is settled that if anything has been incorporated by the Legislature by way of legislation, there must be a purpose behind it, and it cannot be considered redundant. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the court is to ensure that the order is in accordance with the statute. After appreciating the factual aspects and legal position, the court found no infirmity in the impugned order.
Review and Revision Powers
Regarding the order dated 30.7.2016, it is a settled proposition that the power of review, revision, or appeal is a creation of statute. There is no provision in the Industrial Disputes Act that confers power to the adjudicator to review its own order. Applying this principle, the Labour Court rightly refused to review or recall the order dated 26.3.2016 by passing the order dated 30.7.2016.
Conclusion
After discussing the facts and legal position, the court concluded that there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, dated 26.3.2016 and 30.7.2016 in I.D. Case No.4 of 2015. Accordingly, the court declined to interfere with the same, and the writ petition was dismissed.
From India, Bhubaneswar
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Legal Clarification on Absconding Employee, Contract Labour Engagement & Leave Entitlement Ammen.pdf
CTC_SALARY_SLIP _FORM_(legal)(1 ).xls