S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. Rule.

2. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the constitutional validity of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("I.D. Act" for short) and praying that it be declared ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India as also Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 ("Advocates Act" for short).

4. The further prayer is that an order passed on 15th February, 2017 by the 2nd Labour Court, Pune in Reference IDA No.121 of 2016 be quashed and set aside.

5. The facts leading to this Petition briefly stated are as under:

(a). The petitioner states that it is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is an existing company within the meaning of Section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013. The company is having one of its factories at the address mentioned in the cause title. In this factory, the company is inter alia engaged in the manufacture of machinery for Sugar Cement, MHE and Boilers. The petitioner in all employs, including management staff, about 1765 employees. The petitioner states that the workmen employed by the company used to be represented by Thyssen Krupp Workers Union which is the recognized Union. The petitioner submits that they have signed various wage settlements alongwith the current wage settlement signed dated 25th November, 2015 with the said Union. Through this settlement, it has fixed the terms and conditions of service of the workmen employed in the petitioner's factory at Pune. In addition to this, the remaining terms and conditions of service are governed by the contract of employment that is the appointment orders and the Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.

(b). The petitioner submits that the respondent workman was appointed as a Welder with the petitioner with effect from 1st April, 2001.

(c). The petitioner further states that the respondent was dismissed from services with effect from 24th August, 2015 for acts of misconduct, after following due process of law.

(d). The petitioner further states that the respondent had raised a dispute before the office of the Additional Commissioner of Labour at Pune. The said dispute was referred to the Conciliation Officer. Since the dispute could not be resolved amicably, the Conciliation Officer forwarded his failure report to the Government of Maharashtra and the said dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The petitioner submits that thereafter, the Labour Court had issued notices to the parties. The respondent-workman appeared in the matter and filed his statement of claim dated 29th July, 2016, copy of which is Annexure “A” to the Petition. The respondent-workman also filed his objection under Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Annexure “B”) objecting the petitioner from engaging a legal practitioner.

(e). The petitioner thereafter appeared in the matter and filed its written statement dated 24th October, 2016 (Annexure “C”) in reply to the statement of claim dated 29th July, 2016. The petitioner also filed its reply dated 16th January, 2017 (Annexure “D”) to the objection application raised by the respondent-workman.

(f). The petitioner submits that the respondent filed its written notes of arguments on 24th November, 2016 (Annexure “E”).

(g). The petitioner submits that thereafter, the Labour Court was pleased to pass its order dated 15th February, 2017, which is impugned in the present petition. h. The petitioner submits that they wished to engage a legal practitioner of their choice to conduct the matter being Reference IDA No.121 of 2016 between the petitioner and the respondent-workman. The petitioner further states that the Labour Court at Pune has failed to appreciate that the officers of the Company are not well versed with the provisions of the law. The petitioner also submits that the