S.C. Gupte, J.

Heard. Rule. By consent of parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. This Petition, filed by an individual workman, challenges an order passed by the Labour Court at Bandra, Mumbai in a reference made to it under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the "I.D. Act"). The impugned order was passed on three miscellaneous applications made to the court under Sections 36 (4) and 36 (2) of the I.D. Act. The first application was made by the second party workman under Section 36(4), whilst the two other applications were made by the first party employer. The controversy pertains to the employer's right to be represented under Section 36 of the I.D. Act.

3. The reference was made to the Labour Court at the instance of the Petitioner-workman, challenging her termination from the services of the Respondent herein, with effect from 14th November, 2016. At the very outset of the hearing of the reference, the Petitioner raised an objection under Section 36 (4) of the I. D. Act to the appearance of the Respondent herein through an advocate. The objection was filed in the form of Misc. Application, designated as Exh.U1. The Respondent, for its part, filed two Misc. Applications, being Exhs. C6 and C9.

By Exh. C6 it sought permission for filing of memo of appearance of one Vasanti Kunder, who was instructed by the Respondent herein to appear in the matter; whereas Exh. C9 was a memorandum of appearance filed on behalf of the Respondent herein under section 36(2) of the I.D. Act. One Vikrant Gurha, on behalf of the Respondent, authorizing four individuals, namely, Mr. Lancy D'Souza, legal advisor to Bombay Chamber of Commerce and Industry alongwith Ms. Deepika Agarwal, Ms. Vasanti Kunder, Ms. Priyanka Sawant and Ms. Priyanka Chaurasiya, described as legal associates of the Chamber to act, appear and plead on behalf of the Respondent.

In its impugned order passed on these miscellaneous applications, the Labour Court rejected the Petitioner's application being Exh. U1 and allowed the Respondent's applications being Exhs. C6 and C9, permitting Mr. Lancy D'Souza and other legal associates to represent the Respondent (the first party company) in the reference. This order is assailed by the Petitioner in the present petition.

4. The Petitioner, who appears inperson, objects to the impugned order on four counts. Firstly, it is submitted that Bombay Chamber of Commerce and Industry (for short, hereinafter referred to as "BCCI"), is not an association of employers covered under Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 36 of the I.D. Act. It is next contended by the Petitioner that the Respondent herein is not a member of BCCI. Thirdly, it is submitted that "officer" of an association of employers referred to under Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 36 of the Act only includes an individual officer and not a group or collection of officers. It is lastly submitted that neither of the persons, for whom authority to represent the Respondent herein is sought, is an "officer" of BCCI. The Petitioner relies on several judgments, both of the Supreme Court and this Court, in support of her case.

5. On the other hand, it is submitted by Mr. Naik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent. that BCCI is indeed an association of employers, of which his client is a member. Learned counsel submits that a legal adviser / associate an association such as BCCI is included in the expression "officer" appearing in clause (2) of Subsection (2) of Section 36 of the I.D. Act. Learned Counsel also places reliance on judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court in support of his submissions.

6. Section 36 of the I.D. Act, which deals with the issue of representation of the parties before an industrial judicator in any reference or application made under the I.D. Act, is in the following terms:

36. Representation of parties.-(1) a workman who is a party to a dispute shall b