ANIL KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 30th November, 2005 of the Labor Court by which the application of the workman under Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was allowed holding that the petitioner management is not entitled to be represented by a legal practioner without the consent of the workman and without the permission of the Court and in the circumstances the advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner was barred from representing the petitioner and the matter was adjourned to facilitate the petitioner to appoint a new authorized representative.

2. The petitioner contended that it is a partnership firm dealing in sale and purchase of yarns which was dissolved in 2000. The respondent was allegedly working with M/s.Suman Agencies for 16 years and he left the service after getting his dues after full and final settlement of his claims. However, on 18th September, 2003 a claim was filed through the trade union claiming that he was employed with the petitioner for a monthly salary of Rs.5000/- for 20 years and on 7th August, 2001 when he demanded arrears of salary, the management/petitioner got angry and he was compelled to give his res