Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ambuja Cements Limited vs Dinesh Prajapat on 21 April, 2023
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13161/2022
Ambuja Cements Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Hema Ram
----Respondent
Connected With
1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13175/2022
2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13180/2022
3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13280/2022
4. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13314/2022
5. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13682/2022
6. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13692/2022
7. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15640/2022
8. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15986/2022
9. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16006/2022
10. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16283/2022
11. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16337/2022
12. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18850/2022
13. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18851/2022
14. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18852/2022
15. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18892/2022
16. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18894/2022
17. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18896/2022
18. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18903/2022
19. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18909/2022
20. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18910/2022
21. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18956/2022
22. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18960/2022
23. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18963/2022
24. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3023/2023
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitin Ojha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Bhati
Mr. Manvendra Singh
(2 of 3) [CW-13161/2022]
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
21/04/2023
1. The issue in the present writ petitions is whether after the
issuance of notification dated 09.06.2011 vide which Section 30 of
the Advocates Act, 1961 has been notified to come into force with
effect from 15.06.2011, the said provision would prevail over the
specific provision of 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
Meaning thereby, whether Section 30 of the Advocates Act would
prevail over Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and
whether the bar provided under Section 36(4) of the Industrial
Disputes Act would become redundant by virtue of Section 30 of
the Advocates Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment
of Kerala High Court in the case of Adv. K. G. Suresh vs. The
Union of India & Ors.; AIR 2021 Ker 152 and the Division
Bench judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Pawan Reley
and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors.; W.P.(C) 3074/2019.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Paradip
Port Trust, Paradip vs. Their Workmen; AIR 1977 SC 36 has
not been considered in both the above judgments. Further, Section
36 of the Industrial Disputes Act was not under consideration in
the said judgments and therefore, the position of law as laid down
by Paradip Port Trust (supra) would govern the present dispute.
Learned counsel further submitted that in Thyssen Krupp
Industries India Private vs. Suresh Maruti Chougule and
Ors.; Civil Appeal No.6586 of 2019, the issue whether Section
(3 of 3) [CW-13161/2022]
30 of the Advocates Act would override Section 36(4) of the
Industrial Disputes Act has been referred to the larger Bench of
the Apex Court while keeping into consideration the judgment in
Paradip Port Trust (supra) and unless the said reference is
answered, the ratio as laid down in Paradip Port Trust (supra)
would govern the present dispute.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to make his
submissions on the said issue.
5. List the matters on 24.04.2023.
(REKHA BORANA),J
60 to 84-Sachin/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
