( 1 ) PARTIES are involved in an industrial dispute (ID No. 833/90) before the Industrial Tribunal pending for the last about nine years or so and Mr. Sameer Parkash, practising Advocate is the bone of contention. Respondent workman wants him to be debarred from representing the employer but petitioner justifies his representation under Section 36 (2) of ID Act. Though the point in issue is as good as covered by the Supreme Court judgment in Paradip Port Trust Paradip v. Their Workman, AIR 1977 SC 36, yet the rival contentions would have to be gone into again.

( 2 ) IT transpires that respondent objected to Mr. Parkash s representation as late as on 27. 4. 1999 on the plea that he being a practising Advocate was disqualified to represent the Management in the face of provisions of Section 36 (3) (4) of I. D. Act. Petitioner justified his representation on the ground that he was the President, Treasurer and the Officer on special duty of the Industrial and Commercial Employer Association of India of which petitioner was a Member and was thus competent to represent it under Section 36 (2) of the Act. But Tribunal sided with the workman and held him debarred from representing the Management under Section 36 (4) for being a practising Advocate and for having failed to obtain the consent of the workman and leave of the Court.

( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Senior Advocate pointed out that the issue stood concluded by the judgment of Supreme Court in, Paradip Port Trust, Paradip v. Their Workmen (supra) but Mr. Vohra stuck to his guns placing reliance and his own interpretation on provisions of Section 36 (3) and (4) which according to him prohibited representation of a workman or an employer through a practising Advocate save otherwise by consent of other side or with the leave of Court.

( 4 ) IT would, therefore, be advantageous to extract the relevant provisions of Section 36 of the Act for proper appreciation of rival contentions.

"36. Representation of parties (1) A workman who is a party to dispute shall be entitled to be represented in any proceeding under this Act by (a) (any member of the executive or other office bearer) of a registered trade union of which he is a member; (b) (any member of the executive or other office bearer) of a federation of trade unions to which the trade union referred to in Clause (a) is affiliated; (c) where the worker is not a member of any trade union, by (any member of the executive or other office bearer) of any trade union connected with, or by any other workman employed in, the industry in which the worker is employed and authorised in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) An employer who is a party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented in any proceeding under this Act by (a) an officer of an association of employers of which he is a member; (b) an officer of a federation of association of employers to which the association referred to in Clause (a) is affiliated; (c) where the employer is not a member of any association of employers, by an officer of any association of employers connected with, or by any other employer engaged in, the industry in which the employer is engaged and authorised in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) No party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner in any conciliation proceedings under this Act or in any proceedings before a Court (4) In any proceeding (before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal), a party to a dispute may be represented by a legal practitioner with the consent of the other parties to the proceedings and (with the leave of the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be ). "

( 5 ) THIS section-envisages representation of a workman and Management of Labour fora. While its Sub-section (1) provides that an employee could be represented by any member of the executive or other office bearer of a registered trade union of which he was a member