Appearance of a legal practitioner before Tribunal is not barred.

A.P. SHAH, CJ.

In this writ appeal, we are concerned with the scope of Section 36(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "I.D. Act"), on the question as to whether in an industrial adjudication, an employer can be represented by an office bearer of an association of employers when such office bearer is also a legal practitioner.

2. The appellant has raised a dispute under Section 2A(ii) of the I.D. Act in I.D. No.256/2002 for reinstatement with backwages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits as against the management of the 2nd respondent-Company. The appellant has also filed Complaint No.4/2002 as against Mr. R. Viswanathan, (IRO of the respondent-company) under Section 33(a) of the I.D.Act and I.A. No.88/2004 is filed to implead Mr. P.V. Sundaram, Director to the Complaint No.4/2002 as a respondent in the place of deceased R. Viswanathan. In all the above three proceedings, on behalf of the respondent Mr. R. Ganesan, Company Secretary of the respondent has authorised Mr. N. Balasubramanian, a practising advocate and a member of the Managing Committee of the Employers Association, namely, All India Manufacturers Organisation to represent the respondent.

.3. The appellant-workman objected to the appearance of Mr. N. Balasubramanian admittedly a qualified advocate, on the ground that he is a legal practitioner and consequently, not entitled to represent the respondent-company in view of the provisions of Section 36(2) of the I.D. Act. The appellant has not disputed the position that Mr. N. Balasubramanian is a member of the Managing Committee of an Employers Association i.e. All India Manufacturers Organisation and that he intents to represent the respondent-company in that capacity. However, according to the appellant Mr. N. Balasubramanian is not on the pay-roll of any of the member establishment and not in the respondent-company either, hence, he is disentitled to appear in his capacity as a member of the Employers Association. By common order dated 03.01.2005 passed in all the three proceedings, the Labour Court has upheld the right of Mr. N. Balasubramanian to represent the respondent-company under Section 36(2) of the I.D. Act.

.4. Aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, the appellant filed the present writ petition questioning the entitlement of Mr. N. Balasubramanian to appear on behalf of the respondent-company. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition with the following order.

."The common order dated 03.01.2005 giving the numbers as I.A. No.88/2004, Complaint No.4/2002 and I.D. No.256/2002 stands confirmed so far as it relates to the relief prayed for in I.A. No.88/2004 alone. In other words, Complaint No.4/2002 and I.D. No.256/2002 are not disposed of by the impugned order. The Labour Court is directed to first take up the complaint bearing No.4/2002 for disposal in accordance with law and then take up I.D. No.256/2002 for disposal".

5. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties agreed that the above order of the learned single Judge is clearly erroneous. The Labour Court has not decided I.A. No.88 of 2004 and the common order passed by the Labour Court pertains only to the question of the right of Mr. N. Balasubramanian to represent the respondent-company.

6. Thus, the short question that calls for our consideration is whether the provisions of Section 36 of the I.D. Act bars the appearance of a legal practitioner even though he is a member of the Managing Committee of the Employers Association.

7. Section 36 of I.D. Act which provides for representation of parties is as follows: -

36.(1) A workman who is a party to a dispute 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 the federation of trade unions to which the trade union referred t