A. Abhishek Reddy, J. – Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The CWJC No. 18738 of 2021 has been filed for the following relief(s): –

“That the application is for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 27.08.2021 passed by the presiding officer, Labour Court, Patna in I.D. Case No. 08/2019 whereby and where under the petition filed by the management u/s 36(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act has been allowed and the objection raised by the petitioner whereby and where under it was objected that as per section 36(4) of the statute which barred for appearance of practicing advocate, and for any other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case and also for any other relief/ reliefs the petitioner may found entitled.”

3. The CJWC No. 10095 of 2023 has been filed for the following reliefs: –

“(i) For quashing the order dated 20.1.2023 and 25.4.2023 passed by learned Labour Court in Reference Case No. 46/2019 and Reference Case No.1/2021 whereby and where under practicing Advocates has been allowed to appear in this case on behalf of the employer of the said company as it is in contravention of section 36 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

(ii) For restraining Advocates to appear on behalf of the company in Reference Case No. 46/2019 and Reference Case No.1/2021 pending in the Labour Court, Patna.

(iii) For grant of any other reliefs for which petitioner is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

4. The issue involved in both the cases is one and similar, therefore, both the cases are disposed of by this common order.

5. The CWJC No. 18738 of 2021 is filed assailing the order dated 27.08.2021 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna in the I.D. Case No. 08 of 2019 whereby the learned Presiding Officer has allowed the application filed under Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act).

6. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is working as an employee in the third respondent-company and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. After enquiry, an order of termination was passed on 25.05.2018. Therefore, the petitioner has filed a case under Section 2A of the ID Act before the Labour Court, Patna challenging order of termination dated 25.05.2018 and the same was registered as ID Case No. 08 of 2019. That after issuance of the notices to the respondent No. 3 herein, the management has appeared through its lawyers Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha and one Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tiwari representing themselves as the office bearers of the Bihar Employers’ Association. That the petitioner has raised his objection under Section 36(4) of the ID Act objecting to the appearance of the lawyers. However, the Labour Court has rejected the objection of the petitioner and allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 3 herein, vide order dated 27.08.2021 aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that the so called representatives of Bihar Employers’ Association Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tiwari are both practicing advocates and styling themselves as Honorary Secretary and Honorary Joint Secretary of the said association have filed the said application. That the application filed by the said lawyer is a false claim made without there being any evidence on record. That the Labour Court has failed to see that the provisions of the Act more particularly, Section 36 of the ID Act cannot be defeated by the management by employing advocates masquerading as office bearers of an association. The Labour Court failed to verify the credentials of the said persons and allowed the application made by the management to represent this case. That Section 36 of the ID Act is meant to safeguard the interests of the workers/ employees and the same cannot be defeated by showing practicing advocates as the office bearers of an association.

8. Learned counsel