Bombay High CourtWP/466/2016disposed off

Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha v. Ajay Balkrishna Phapale And ANR

2016-03-21Hon'Ble Shri Justice S.C. Gupte2 pages

wp466-16.doc sg

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.466 OF 2016 Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha

...Petitioner

vs Ajay Balkrishna Phapale And Anr.

...Respondents

.....

Mr. Arshad Shaikh, i/b. Gautam Yadav, for the Petitioner. Ms. M.K. Mehta, for Respondent No.1.

Mr. Kiran Mehta, Respondent No.2 present in person. ......

CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J.

DATED: MARCH 21, 2016 P.C. :

After hearing the parties at length, the petition is disposed of by consent of parties by passing the following directions :- (i) It is clarified that Respondent No.2 shall, as of now, be permitted only to act on behalf of Respondent No.1 before the Industrial Court and not appear and address the Court as a representative of Respondent No.1.

(ii) In case Respondent No.2 proposes to appear before the Court as a representative of Respondent No.1 by filing an authority in Form-1, he may, subject to Industrial Court allowing him to, do so, but, in that case, Mrs. Manisha Kiran Mehta, Advocate, who has filed Pg 1 of 2

wp466-16.doc vakalatnama on behalf of Respondent No.1, will have to withdraw her vakalatnama.

(iii) In the event, however, Respondent No.2 appears as a representative of Respondent No.1 by filing an authority in Form-1, he will have to withdraw his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief filed on behalf of Respondent No.1.

(iv) In any event, and particularly if Respondent No.2 does not choose to represent Respondent No.1 by filing an authority in Form-1, the question as to whether or not he can lead evidence on behalf of Respondent No.1 by filing an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief, will be considered by the Industrial Court before the affidavit of evidence is accepted on record and read as an examination-in-chief and the Petitioner herein is called upon to cross-examine him. (v) Needless to add that in view of the directions contained in clause (iii) above, the order dated 5 December 2015 stands quashed and set aside.

( S.C. GUPTE, J. ) Pg 2 of 2