rm duraiswamy

vs.

labour court [1997 lic 2716 mad-hc]

section 36 of the id act refers to persons who can represent management and workmen in the  proceeding under id act.  does the act allow the office bearers of the association as well as the officers employed by unions/federations to represent them?

section 36(1) deals with workmen’s representatives and allows only office bearers of the unions and their federation. whereas under 36(2), employers could be represented not only by the office bearers of their associations and federations but also by the paid officers of such associations and federation.

francis gomez

vs.

the president, thiruvananthapuram shops & commercial establishments employees union

[1998(81) flr 219 hc-ker-sb]

as per section 36(4) of the id act, legal practitioners can appear on behalf of parties only iF not objected to by opposite party and consented by the presiding officer.  management advocate admitted on first day without objection from union.  in subsequent hearing, union objected to this.  is this objection maintainable ?

If there is any objection, it should be raised on the first day itself. since no objection raised on first day, the implied consent once given cannot be subsequently withdrawn.

management of  karnataka state  transport corp.

Vs.

ksrtc staff federation [1998(81)flr 797 sc-db]

when does an emplyer’s or workmen’s (unions) obligation under a settlement come to an end ?

does it come to an end at the end of the validity period indicated in the settlement itself ?

as per section 19(2) of the id act, the obligation under a settlement will bind the parties for the duration agreed by them and even after that, as per section 19(6), it will be binding for 2 more months after a valid termination notice is given by one party to the other.

as per the supreme court decision, even after this extended period, the obligations will continue unless a fresh settlement is signed expressly cancelling or substituting the terms or obligations under the earlier settlement.