Rajbahadur Baiga vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8970 MP

                                                                       1                              WP-28120-2021
                                             The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                      WP No. 28120 of 2021

(RAJBAHADUR BAIGA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

Jabalpur, Dated : 20-12-2021 None for the petitioner.

The Advocates are abstaining from work today. The Apex Court in the case of Harish Uppal (Ex-Capt.) v. Union of India and Anr.; (2003) 2 SCC 45 has opined that despite strike of the Advocates, the Courts may decide the matters on merits. The relevant portion

of the aforesaid judgment reads as under :-

"20. Thus the law is already well settled. It is the duty of every Advocate who has accepted a brief to attend trial, even though it may go on day to day and for a prolonged period. It is also settled law that a lawyer who has accepted a brief cannot refuse to attend Court because a boycott call is given by the Bar Association. It is settled law that it is unprofessional as well as unbecoming for a lawyer who has accepted a brief to refuse to attend Court even in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott by the Bar Association or the Bar Council.

It is settled law that Courts are under an obligation to hear and decide cases brought before them and cannot adjourn matters merely because lawyers are on strike. The law is that it is the duty and obligation of Courts to go on with matters or otherwise it would tantamount to becoming a privy to the strike. It is also settled l a w that if a resolution is passed by Bar Associations expressing want of confidence in judicial officers it would amount to scandalising the Courts to undermine its authority and thereby the Advocates will have committed contempt of Court. Lawyers have known, at least since Mahabir Singh's case [(1999) 1 SCC 37] that if they participate in a boycott or a strike, their action is ex-facie bad in view of the declaration of law by this Court. A lawyer's duty is to boldly ignore a call for strike or boycott of Court/s. Lawyers have also known, at least since Roman Services' case Signature Not Verified SAN [(2001) 1 SCC 118 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 3 : 2001 Digitally signed by MANJU CHOUKSEY Date: 2021.12.21 16:55:22 IST 2 WP-28120-2021 SCC (L & S) 152] that the Advocates would be answerable for the consequences suffered by their clients if the non-appearance was solely on grounds of a strike call.

35. In conclusion, it is held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even on a token strike. The protest, if any is required, can only be by giving press statements, TV interviews, carrying out of Court premises banners and/or placards, wearing black or white or any colour armbands, peaceful protect marches outside and away from Court premises, going on dharnas or relay fasts etc. It is held that lawyers holding vakalats on behalf of their clients cannot refuse to attend Courts in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott. All lawyers must boldly refuse to abide by any call for strike or boycott . No lawyer can be visited with any adverse consequences by the Association or the Council and no threat or coercion of any nature including that of expulsion can be held out. It is held that no Bar Council or Bar Association can permit calling of a meeting for purposes of considering a call for strike or boycott and requisition, if any, for such meeting must be ignored. It is held that only in the rarest of rare cases where the dignity, integrity and independence of the Bar and/or the Bench are at stake, Courts may ignore (turn a blind eye) to a protest abstention from work for not more than one day. It is being clarified that it will be for the Court to decide whether or not the issue involves dignity or integrity or independence of the Bar and/or the Bench. Therefore in such cases the President of the Bar must first consult the Chief Justice or the District Judge before Advocates decide to absent themselves from Court. The decision of the Chief Justice or the District Judge would be final and have to be abided by the Bar. It is held that Courts are under no obligation to adjourn matters because lawyers are on strike. On the contrary, it is the duty of all Courts to go on with matters on their boards even in the absence of lawyers. In other words, Courts must not be Signature Not Verified SAN privy to strikes or calls for boycotts. It is held that if a lawyer, holding a vakalat of a client, Digitally signed by MANJU CHOUKSEY Date: 2021.12.21 16:55:22 IST 3 WP-28120-2021 abstains from attending Court due to a strike call, h e shall be personally liable to pay costs which shall be addition to damages which he might have to pay his client for loss suffered by him." The same can be gathered in Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation (P) Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC 37; Ramon Services (P) Ltd. v. Subhash Kapoor, (2001) 1 SCC 118; Krishnakant Tamrakar v. State of M.P., (2018) 17 SCC 27; PLR Projects (P) Ltd. v. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., (2019) 10 SCC 306; District Bar Association Dehradun v. Ishwar Shandilya, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1071.

The petitioner has prayed for following relief :-

"(a) That, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to classify the petitioner as permanent employee in pursuance of Circular dated 07/10/2016 (Annexure P/6) from the date of his entitlement and pay all the consequential benefits, in the interest of justice.

(b) That, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ/order/direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law in stipulated time period.

(c) Any other relief/order or directions, as this Hon'ble High Court deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice may please be awarded along with the cost of proceedings."

As per the pleadings, petitioner is not a civil post holder. On the contrary petitioner is an employee of a cooperative society. The petitioner has claimed benefit of Circular of Government dated 17/10/2016 (Annexure P/6). The said circular on the forehead of it shows that it is applicable to Government Departments and to the employee of Zila Panchayats, it cannot be extended in favour of the employees of co-operative society. The petition Signature Not Verified

is misconceived and is hereby dismissed. SAN

Digitally signed by MANJU CHOUKSEY Date: 2021.12.21 16:55:22 IST 4 WP-28120-2021

(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE

manju

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by MANJU CHOUKSEY Date: 2021.12.21 16:55:22 IST