1976 PLP 371 (PLC)

S. 22 read with industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 36-B-Advocate enrolled with Bar Council-Entitled, as of right, to practice and appear before any Court or Tribunal throughout Pakistan-Statutory right cannot be defeated by past practice-View that common law does not entitle litigants to be represented by counsel before Tribunal-Not correct in view of statutory provisions of Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1965-Advocate, held, entitled to appear before Junior Labour Court subject to permission under S. 36-B (5) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Ghana Ram v. The Commissioner. F. C. R., Quetta Division, Quetta P L D 1969 Quetta 24 rel. Appellant in person. Ghulam Abbas for Respondent. This is an appeal against the order dated 9-10-1974 of Junior Labour Court No. I, Lahore whereby the said learned Court dismissed, an application filed by Mohammad Hanif appellant against his employer, the respondent, under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 hereinafter referred to as the 1. R. O. for default. 2. The appellant was terminated by the respondent on 1-8-1974. He challenged the order of his termination before the learned Labour Court by way of an application under section 25-A of the I. R. O. The said learned Court fixed 9-10-1974 as date of hearing in the case. On the said day the appellant was absent although Mr. Naeem Sultan Butt, Advocate, appeared on his behalf and filed a power of attorney. He stated before the Court that the appellant himself had since been lodged in the judicial lock-up and that he (the counsel) be allowed to represent the appellant. The request of the learned counsel for the appellant was not allowed by the learned Court below who observed that under section 49 (1) of the I. R. O. the appellant could be represented by an officer of C. B. A. and not by a counsel. The appellant's application was consequently dismissed for default. Needless to add that Ghulam Abbas Factory Manager was present on behalf of the respondent. 3. The point of determination in the under consideration appeal is as tot whether a legal practitioner could appear before the learned Junior Labour Court on behalf of the appellant. The provisions of section 49 (1) entitle a worker to be represented in any proceedings under the I. R. O. by an officer of a Collective Bargaining Agent. There is, however, no express prohibition according to these provisions; that a legal practitioner cannot represent a workman before a Junior Labour Court. As a matter of fact the relevant provisions in this behalf are contained in section 36-B (5) of the I. R. O. It is provided therein that no legal practitioner shall assist any party before a Junior Labour Court, without its permission. This means that with the per?mission of a Junior Labour Court, a legal practitioner can assist a party before the said Court. The ordinary dictionary meanings of the word `assist' are, to help; to accompany, to be present. It would thus follow from the relevant provisions of the I. R. O. that there is no express prohibition of a workman to be represented by Counsel before the Junior Labour Court. The only clog in this respect is that be can be assisted before a Junior Labour Court with the permission of the said Court. In the circumstances of the B under consideration case the appellant himself was in the judicial lock-up 6101 9-10-1974 and therefore it was warranted by all norms of equity and fairplay that the permission contemplated by section 36-B (5) should have been accorded in this case. 4. It is also noteworthy that it has been clearly provided in section 22 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act that subject to the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder and any other law for the time being in force an Advocate shall be entitled as of right to practise throughout Pakistan and to appear, act and plead before any Court or Tribunal in Pakistan. The other provisions contained in the I. R. O. are only to this effect that permission of the Junior Labour Coutt is required for a legal petitioner to assist a party before such Court. This permission, as has been observed above, was warranted in this case. In Khana Ram v. The Commis?sioner. F. C. R., Quetta Division, Quetta (P L D 1969 Quetta 24) it was held by the West Pakistan High Court that the statutory right to be represented by counsel conferred by the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1965 cannot be defeated by past practice based on legislation that has been repealed nor can it be said any longer that appearance by counsel would defeat the object of trial under the relevant law. The view that the common law does not entitle the litigant tot be represented by counsel before tribunals is not correct, and the Legislature has now given statutory recognition to the common law principle by prescribing in the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1965 that counsel shall bet entitled to appear before all tribunals. 5. In view of the above, we conclude that in the circumstances of this case Mr. Naeem Sultan Butt could validly appear and conduct the case on behalf of the appellant with the permission of the learned Court below. An otherwise finding recorded by the learned lower Court is therefore not sustainable. 6. In this view of the matter, I accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the learned Court below with the direction that it be decided afresh on merits in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Junior Labour Court No. 1, Lahore for further proceedings on 18-3-1975.