Heard learned Advocate Mr. Joshi for M/s. Trivedi & Gupta on behalf of petitioners and learned Advocate Mr. Iyer for respondent.

2. In present matter, petitioner has challenged order passed by Labour Court, Baroda in Reference (L.C.V.) Nos. 97 to 124 of 2003, dated 20-7-2005. The Labour Court, Baroda has not granted any leave because of objection raised by Union representative Shri Vishnubhai Makwana against appearance of Shri Tushar Bhatt, Consultant, Shri Rajesh Parmar and Shri K. N. Kapoor, Advocate, those who are appearing on behalf of petitioners before Labour Court, Baroda.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Joshi submitted that out of 28 workers, 17 workers have settled the matter with employer. This Court has passed order in Spl.C.A. No. 22326 of 2005 on 22-3-2011, which is quoted as under :

"Mr. Kunan Naik, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners seeks permission to delete respondent No.2.

Permission as prayed for is granted. The respondent No. 2 is ordered to be deleted.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and as the proceedings before the Labour Court are stayed, Registry is directed to notify the present Special Civil Application for final hearing on 24-3-2011 at the bottom of the First Board.

It will be open for the petitioners to file separate petitions with respect to other References except Reference (L.C.V.) No. 97 of 2003 and present petition be confined to order passed in Reference (L. C. V.) No. 97 of 2003 only."

4. In these matters, Rule has been issued on 18-11-2005 and interim relief is also granted in favour of present petitioners and due to that, further proceedings in respect to aforesaid references before Labour Court, Baroda has been stayed by this Court.

5. I have considered submissions made by both learned Advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties. The question which was raised before this Court being almost based on undisputed facts. Section 36(4) of Act is very relevant in deciding present two petitions preferred by petitioners. The industrial dispute raised by workmen under Sec. 2A of I. D. Act, 1947 against their termination which referred for adjudication to Labour Court, Baroda being Reference Nos. 97 to 124 of 1993. In aforesaid references, on behalf of Prabha Enterprise Contractor, which was party in reference, one Shri Tushar Bhatt, Consultant had appeared and for that, no consent has been given by Union representative Shri Vishnubhai Makwana. Similarly, another representative Shri Rajesh Parmar from Prabha Enterprise Contractor and Gujarat Flavours Private Enterprise has filed appearance. Even that Wi1S also objected by office-bearers of Union representative. Therefore, said objections were kept for hearing by Labour Court, Baroda.

5.1. On behalf of employer-Gujarat Flavours Pvt. Ltd. and others, learned Advocate Mr. Kapoor has filed Vakalatnama along with learned Advocate Mr. Rajesh Parmar. In their Vakalatnama, Union Office-bearer has raised objection and not given consent by Shri Vishnu Makwana. Therefore, matter was kept for hearing and Labour Court has considered relevant provisions of Sec. 36 of I. D. Act, 1947 and come to conclusion that Shri Tushar Bhatt, who was Consultant of employer wherein also Shri Vishnu Makwana, Union office-bearer has not given consent. Shri Tushar Bhatt not remained present personally for making submissions before Labour .

Court, Baroda. Even no written submissions produced by Shri Tushar Bhatt, Consultant. Thereafter, Shri Rajesh Parmar was engaged by employer and contractor. But he was engaged in which capacity and whose designation has not been disclosed by employer before Labour Court, Baroda and whether Shri Rajesh Parmar is an officer or Advocate or legal practitioner or not.

For that, no details have been given by employer as well as contractor before Labour Court, Baroda. Therefore, in respect of Shri Tushar Bhatt and Shri Rajesh Parmar, Labour Court, Baroda has not granted any permission or leave to appear before Labo