JUDGMENT :

1. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of order dated 20.6.2013 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No.37 of 2012 filed under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 permitting engagement of a lawyer by the opposite party to conduct her above noted case.

2. Mr. Somnath Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner while drawing our attention to sub-section 4 of Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short “the Act” submitted that despite objection from the petitioner side, the above noted order has been passed which clearly violates the above noted provision which makes it clear that a legal practitioner cannot be engaged by a party if the other party does not consent to the same. In such background, he prayed that the impugned order be set aside. In this context, he drew our attention to the memo of objection under Annexure-4 filed by the petitioner to the prayer of the opposite party – workman for engagement of a lawyer. In this context, he also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Paradip Port Trust, Paradip v. Their Workmen reported in (1977