The main legal point established in the judgment is the equitable relief provided under Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the need for a balanced approach in allowing legal representation.

JUDGMENT :

K.R. Mohapatra, J. - Heard Mr. N. C. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.K. Mohapatra, learned Government Advocate for Opposite Party No. 1 and Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2-Workers' Union.

2. The Management of Mahanadi Coal fields Ltd., Ib Valley Area, Brajrajnagar, has filed this writ petition assailing the order dated 24-08-2001 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Presiding Officer Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar (for short, 'CGIT') in Tr. I.D. Case No. 97 of 2001, whereby an application filed by the Management-petitioner to grant permission to be represented by a Legal Practitioner was rejected.

3. Briefly stated the relevant facts for adjudication of this case are as follows: The Brajranjagar Coal fields Workers' Union (for short 'the Workers' Union') had raised dispute before the Conciliation Officer with regard to regularization of 60 (sixty) contract labourers, who were engaged in permanent and perennial nature of work for more than ten years, under the Management-petitioner. Conciliation being failed, the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela and registered as I.D. Case No.24 of 1999 (C). Subsequently, it was transferred to the learned CGIT in Tr. I.D. Case No.97 of 2004. Before the learned CGIT, the Workers' Union was being represented by Sri Debendra Mohanta, a Legal Practitioner of the High Court of Orissa, in the capacity of Vice-President of the Workers' Union. Hence, the Management-petitioner had filed a petition on 16.07.2001 (Annexure-1) before the CGIT to be represented by a Legal Practitioner as per the provision of Section 36(4) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the I.D. Act'). It was stated, inter alia in the petition that, since Mr. Mohanta, a seasoned legal practitioner of High Court of Orissa is representing the Workers' Union, the Management-petitioner should be permitted to be represented through a Legal Practitioner. The Workers' Union had filed objection to the said petition contending inter alia that Mr. Mohanta was representing as Vice-President of the Workers' Union and not in the capacity of a Legal Practitioner. Hence, the ground on which permission of the learned CGIT is sought for engaging a Legal Practitioner should not be accepted. As such, they prayed for rejection of the petition under Annexure- 1.

4. Learned CGIT taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties held that when the Union has objected for engagement of an Advocate by the Management, petition filed by the Management to grant leave of the Tribunal for engagement of an Advocate to defend their case stands rejected. Assailing the said order, dated 24.08.2001, this writ petition has been filed.

5. Mr. N.C. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 36(4) of the I.D. Act provides that in any proceeding before the learned Labour Court or the Tribunal a party to a dispute may be represented by a Legal Practitioner with consent of the other party to the proceeding and with the leave of the Labour Court and Tribunal, as the case may be. Since, the Workers' Union has already been represented by a seasoned Legal Practitioner having specialty in the field of Labour Laws, learned CGIT should have permitted the Management-petitioner to be represented by a Legal Practitioner of its choice. Learned CGIT, without assigning any cogent reason, rejected the petition under Annexure-1 only on flimsy ground that the Workers' Union had objection to such representation. It is his submission that the objection raised by the Workers' Union would not hold good, inasmuch as it is being represented by a seasoned Legal Practitioner of High Court of Orissa having specialty in Labour Laws. He, therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned order under Annexures-1 and 2 and for permiting the Management-petitioner to engage a Legal Practitioner of its choice.

6. Mr. Dhal, learned counsel for the opposite parties