( 1 ) M/s. J. B. Transport Company-a proprietary concern and its proprietor have filed the present petition to challenge the order passed by the Labour Court of Ahmedabad in Reference No. 428 of 1997.

( 2 ) THE respondent Shankarlal @ Mavaram Nathuji Patel is working as driver with the petitioner. His employment was terminated on 25/11/1994 hence he raised an industrial dispute which resulted in Reference No. 428 of 1997. In the said reference, the present petitioner initially filed a Vakalatnama on their behalf through their Advocate Mr. S. B. Sharma which is at Exh. 9 in the said reference. The workman raised an objection for the appearance of a practising Advocate. Thereafter, another document purporting to be an authorisation was filed in the said reference and along with that authorisation the Annexure c of this petition and annexure d certificate of registration under Trade Unions Act, at Page 35 were produced before the Labour Court. Even after filing of this authorisation the workman raised a contention before the Labour Court saying that he was raising objection under Sec. 36 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was contended on behalf of the workman that Mr. S. B. Sharma is a practising Advocate and therefore, he could not be permitted to represent the employer in the said proceeding and he was not giving his consent for his appearance as such. As against said contention of the workman, it was urged before the learned Labour Court that Mr. S. B. Sharma was not appearing as practising Advocate but he was appearing as General Secretary, akhil Gujarat Employers Association and he was representing the present petitioner who is member of the Akhil Gujarat Employers Association in his capacity as an officer of the said association. The learned Labour Court didnt find favour with the said contention of the employer and didnt permit Mr. S. B. Sharma to appear and conduct the matter on behalf of the employer by passing his reasoned order which is subject-matter of the present petition.

( 3 ) MR. Sharma is appearing on behalf of the petitioner in this petition raised the contention before me that it is not open for the Labour Court to go into question as the motive of the legal practitioner as the office- bearer of the said employers association and if the employers association has appointed him as an officer it must be accepted. He further submitted before me that in view of the provision of Sec. 36 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and he being the General Secretary of the Akhil Gujarat Employers Union (hereinafter referred to as akhil Union), he was entitled to represent the member of the Akhil Union in a proceeding before the labour Court. In order to consider this submission of him it is necessary to see the provision of Sec. 36. Though Mr. Sharma is relying upon sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 36, it is necessary to consider the whole Sec. 36 in view of the controversy which I am going to consider and decide in this matter. The Sec. 36 is running as under :- 1999 (3) J. B. TRANSPORT CO. v. SHANKARLAL (Spl. C. A.)-Pandit, J. 2021"36. Representation of parties :- (1) A workman who is a party to a dispute in any manner 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 authorized 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 membe