PARESH UPADHYAY, J.

1. Heard Mr. Nilesh Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner employer and Mr. M.S. Mansuri, learned advocate for the respondent Workmen.

2. Challenge in both these petitions is made to the common order passed by the Labour Court, Vadodara in Complaint Applications No.10 and 11 of 2012, in Reference (Demand) No.33 of 2009, dated 07.12.2012. By the impugned order, the Labour Court has denied permission to the employer, to avail service of a legal practitioner, since the workmen concerned has not consented for the same, though on behalf of the concerned workmen, legal practitioners are appearing before the Labour Court, as office bearers of the Union.

3.1 Brief facts, relevant for the purpose of these petitions are as under:

3.2 Reference (Demand) No.33 of 2009 is pending for adjudication before the Labour Court Vadodara. Merits of the said Reference are not relevant for the purpose of these petitions. During pendency of the said Reference, two workmen the present respondents, filed Complaint Applications under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, agitating about their discontinuance of employment.

3.3 In the said Complaint Applications dated 03.11.2012, reply was filed on behalf of the employer on 27.11.2012. During the course of hearing of the said applications, an objection was raised on behalf of the workmen that, the employer be not permitted to represent its case through an advocate, since the concerned workmen have refused to give consent, in that regard.

3.4 It was the case of the employer before the Labour Court that, the workmen are represented through a very senior advocate like Mr. M.S. Mansuri, who is also a regular practitioner before the High Court of Gujarat, and therefore the employer be also permitted to represent its case through a legal practitioner.

3.5 It is the say of the learned advocate for the workmen that, the workmen have refused to give consent. Under these circumstances, considering the provision of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court has passed the impugned order, refusing leave to the employer to represent its case through a legal practitioner.

3.6 It is this order, which is under challenge in this petition.

4. Mr. Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner employer has stated that, the President of the Union the Rajya General Kamdar Mandal, which has taken up the cause of the workmen in the Reference in question, is Mr. M.S. Mansuri, who is a practising lawyer before the High Court of Gujarat, who also appears before the Labour Court. Further, the General Secretary of the said Union is Mr. Parvez M. Mansuri, who is son of Mr. M.S. Mansuri, and he is also an advocate. It is contended that, either of these two, appears before the Labour Court as an office bearer of the Union, but in effect, the workmen concerned are getting the legal assistance of a practising lawyer, and under these circumstances, to say no to the petitioner employer to have service of a lawyer, is discriminatory, illegal and unconstitutional. It is further submitted that, not only on the question of law, which nowadays, is a complex phenomenon in the field of labour jurisprudence, but even in procedural aspects, without legal assistance, practically it is impossible for any employer, even to complete the record before the Labour Court. It is submitted that, pendency of References for years in the Labour Courts is now a common phenomenon. Adjourning the matters there, time and again is a matter of routine. Under these circumstances, even if once, the employer misses to remain present before the Court on time, the matter goes in default against him. It is also contended that the protection envisaged in the year 1947 in favour of the workmen, in the changed scenario requires purposive reading and in the facts of this case, the Labour Court ought to have granted permission, as requested by the petitioner. Mr.Pandya has relied on the following judgments in s