Skip to content


Madras-bangalore Transport Company Vs. Madras-bangalore Transport Company Worker's Union and Ors. (25.02.1964 - KARHC) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 326 of 1964
Judge
Reported in(1964)IILLJ614Kant
ActsIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 36 and 36(4)
AppellantMadras-bangalore Transport Company
RespondentMadras-bangalore Transport Company Worker's Union and Ors.
Advocates:G.S. Ullal, Adv.
Excerpt:
- income tax act,1961[c.a.no.43/1961] -- sections 21 (1) & 31(1): [k.l. manjunath & a.s. bopanna, jj] change of sound system in a theater whether to be treated as capital expenditure or a revenue expenditure? held, it has to be seen that whether the change of sound system has increased the revenue or not. admittedly the old sound system was in existence for several years and due to use of the very same sound system for several years, the old system was worn out. if the assessee has provided certain amenities to its customers by replacing the old system with a better sound system, it cannot be said that the assessee has increased its income. instead of repairing the old stereo system, the assessee has installed the dolby stereo system. this has not benefited the assessee in any way..........past under which a party to an industrial dispute has an unqualified right to be represented by a legal practitioner in proceedings under the said act. 2. nor do we find any reasonable ground for the argument that the right to be represented by a legal practitioner is part of the fundamental right of freedom of speech, the right to hold property and the right to carry on any trade or business. therefore, the limited restriction imposed by s. 36 in a law sanctioned by parliament in the exercise of its legislative competence as conferred by the constitution, cannot be viewed as an abridgment of any fundamental right. 3. we have not been shown that s. 30 of the advocates act which gives every advocate a statutory right to practice before any tribunal or court, has been brought into force......
Judgment:
ORDER

Sadasivayya, J.

1. We are not satisfied that in the face of the statutory provisions, viz., S. 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, there survives some common law right of the past under which a party to an industrial dispute has an unqualified right to be represented by a legal practitioner in proceedings under the said Act.

2. Nor do we find any reasonable ground for the argument that the right to be represented by a legal practitioner is part of the fundamental right of freedom of speech, the right to hold property and the right to carry on any trade or business. Therefore, the limited restriction imposed by S. 36 in a law sanctioned by Parliament in the exercise of its legislative competence as conferred by the Constitution, cannot be viewed as an abridgment of any fundamental right.

3. We have not been shown that S. 30 of the Advocates Act which gives every advocate a statutory right to practice before any tribunal or court, has been brought into force. Further, the complaining party in the present case is not an advocate who has been denied his right to practice. So, S. 30 will be of no assistance to the petitioner. Section 32 of the Advocates Act has no application to representation by an advocate.

4. We decline to admit this writ petition. It is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //