The main legal point established in the judgment is that consent of the party must be specific and after consent had been granted, leave by the court must also be specifically given under Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Implied consent of the party or implied leave of the court are not recognized under the Act.

K.S.Garewal, J.

1. Representation of parties before a Labour Court is what concerns us. However, before entering the arena of controversy, it would be necessary to revisit the adjudication process of industrial disputes by Labour Courts.

2. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides the machinery and procedure for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes, which are disputes or differences between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour.

3. In terms of Section 10 of the Act, where the appropriate Government is of the view that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time, by order in writing refer the dispute either to the Board for promoting the settlement thereof or to a Court of Inquiry or the Labour Court or to a Tribunal for adjudication.

4. Now coming to the question of representation of parties before Labour Courts we may go straight to the relevant provisions regarding representation of the employer. Section 36(2)(a)(b)&(c) gives the categories of persons who can represent the employer. Section 36(3) categorically lays down that no party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner in any proceeding before a Court. Nevertheless, in proceedings before a Labour Court, a party can still be represented by a legal practitioner but always with the consent of the other party and with the leave of the Court. These two conditions appear to be necessary pre-requisites.

5. The present reference to the Full Bench was necessitated when the Division Bench was faced with a conflict of opinion between two different lines of judicial thought, described in detail in the reference order.

6. Some factual background would be necessary as a prologue to our decision. According to Indrasan Parsad, the industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court and registered as reference no. 272 of 1998. The dispute was against M/s Skytone Electrical (India) Ltd. An application was filed by Indrasan Parsad under Section 36 to debar S.S. Saini and N.S. Rajput from appearing on behalf of the employer since they were advocates (legal practitioners).

7. The application was resisted by the employer who pleaded that Saini and Rajput were office bearers of an Employers Association of which Skytone was a member. It was further stated that Saini and Rajput were representing the management right from the beginning, whereas the objection had been raised at a belated stage.

8. According to the workman, he came to know about Saini and Rajput being office bearers of the Association only when the reply was filed. This fact had not been disclosed by the management whose duty was to disclose the identity of the representatives so that the question whether they could or could not appear, was decided on the first day.

9. Indrasan Parsads application was dismissed by the Labour Court, Faridabad, on April 16, 2004 and that order has been impugned through C.W.P.No. 15425 of 2004.

10. Provisions of Section 36 with regard to representation by legal practitioners are contained in sub-sections (3) and (4). The former sub section lays down an absolute bar but the latter permits representation by legal practitioners with the consent of the other party and leave of the Court. Before going to the stage of deciding this reference, it would be useful to record some of the first principles of representation of a party before a Labour Court or for that matter any Court.

11. Every suit, complaint or dispute commences with the filing of a complaint, an application or a petition pleading the essential facts and raising the claim or dispute under the relevant provision of law . When the dispute goes for adjudication before a Labour Court, on a reference under Section 10, as in the present case, and the workman who has raised the dispute is present and