An Additional Central Government Standing Counsel is not an officer of the employer or an association of employers and cannot represent the management before an Industrial Tribunal without the consent of the other party and the leave of the Tribunal.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in this writ petition challenges an order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi on 23. 5. 1997 in L. C. A. No. 308/89. The impugned order was passed on an application filed by the workmen under Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act objecting to the appearance of an Advocate on behalf of the management. By the impugned order the objection of the workman was upheld by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal holding that the representative of the management Mr. Anil Sehgal being a legal practitioner could not be allowed to appear in the case on behalf of the management. The contention of the petitioner-management in. this writ petition is that Shri Anil Sehgal was an Additional Standing Government Counsel and hence he was entitled to appear before the Industrial Tribunal on behalf of the management. According to the petitioner, an Additional Standing Government Counsel is not a legal practitioner to whom Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 36 of the Industiial Disputes Act, 1947 will apply.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation and respondent No. 1 Mr. Suraj Pal Sharma is in the employment of the petitioner as a General Assistant. Respondent No. 1 filed an application before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal under Section 33-C (2) of the ID Act claiming arrears of wages and the said application was registered as LCA No. 308/89 titled Mr. Suraj Pal Sharma v. Doordarshan Kendra, New Delhi. On receipt of notice from the Tribunal the management appeared through Mr. Suraj Singh, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel and filed reply. On expiry of the tenure of appointment of Mr. Suraj Singh as Additional Central Government Standing Counsel the management entrusted the case with Mr. U. M. Kalra, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel and thereafter with Mr. Anil Sehgal, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel. On 31. 3. 1997 respondent No. 1 filed an application undersection 36 of the ID Act praying that Shri Anil Sehgal who is a practising Advocate may be debarred from appearing on behalf of the management. Respondent No. 1 contended that Mr. Anil Sehgal was a practising Advocate, that he was not an officer of any federation of employers, that the employer was not a member of any federation, that the Government Counsel was not an employee of the Government or the Department where the workman was employed and that he had no focus standi to appear on behalf of the management. The management filed a reply to the above mentioned application of the workman stating that the services of legal practitioners were being availed of by the management in the case which was pending since 1989 but no objection had been taken by the workman. It was also pointed out that Shri Anil Sehgal having been appointed as Additional Central Government Standing Counsel had taken over the case file from the former Additional Central Government Standing Counsel who had been looking after the case before the Industrial Tribunal. However, by the impugned order dated 23. 5. 1998, the Tribunal held that the management representative was not able to show that he was appearing with the consent of the other party to the proceeding and with the leave of the Tribunal. It was also held that the representative of the management was not able to show that he was falling in the category of persons who were entitled to represent the managementas per provisions of the relevant section in the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal further held that Shri Anil Sehgal being a legal practitioner could not be allowed to appear on behalf of the management.

( 3 ) IT is contended by the petitioner in this writ petition that a Government Counsel cannot be described as legal practitioner whose appearance is intended to be restricted under Section 36 of the I. D. Act. According to the petitioner, the post of Additional Government Standing Counsel has a tenure of thre