M/S.Sky Airways v. Tapan Ku.Sahoo

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.5569 of 2013 M/s. Sky Airways ....

Petitioner Mr. P.K. Rath, Advocate -versusSri Tapan Kumar Sahoo ....

Opp. Party

CORAM:

THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK Order No.

ORDER

04.07.2022 05.

1. The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 11th January, 2013 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I. D. Case No.5 of 2011 declining permission to the Legal Adviser of the Petitioner to represent the Management before the Tribunal.

2. Despite service of notice on the sole Opposite Party workman, none appears for the workman.

3. It is submitted by Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner Management that its Legal Adviser has been representing it throughout and there is no reason for the Tribunal to have disallowed the Legal Adviser to do so by the impugned order. In fact, such representation was allowed by the Tribunal by an order dated 5th April, 2011. The application by the Opposite Party for disengagement of Legal Adviser was filed only after the Petitioner objected to an application by Opposite Party seeking permission to engage a Lawyer on his behalf. That person apparently was not even a lawyer.

// 2 //

4. Since there is no opposition to the present petition, the Court sets aside the impugned order dated 11th January, 2013 of the Tribunal and permits the Petitioner to be represented by its Legal Adviser before the Tribunal.

5. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. The interim order is vacated. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Tribunal before which the aforementioned I.D. Case No.5 of 2011 be listed on 10th August, 2022 for directions and for being proceeded with in accordance with law. (Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge KC Bisoi