Since disputed questions of fact are not involved and the opposite party is represented by Sri I.D. Paliwal, the case is being decided at the admission stage itself.

2. Heard Sri T.A. Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri I.D. Paliwal, the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The services of the respondent workman was terminated by the employer petitioner and an industrial dispute was raised by the respondent, which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. The Industrial Tribunal gave an award against the workman. During these proceedings when the award was being made, the employer was being represented through its advocate Sri G.S. Gairola and was allowed to participate before the Tribunal and, at that time, tacit consent was given by the workman.

4. Now, an application has been filed by the workman for the recall of the ex-parte award in which notices were issued by the Tribunal and the employer again sent its representative Sri G.S. Gairola to appear on their behalf. Upon a fresh vakalatnama being filed, the workman raised an objection that he has not given any consent and, consequently, the employer cannot be represented through an Advocate. The Tribunal, after considering the matter, passed the impugned order accepting the contention of the workman and disallowing the employer to be represented through its advocate. The employer, being aggrieved by this, has filed the present writ petition.

5. The sole question, which arises for consideration is, whether an advocate could represent a party before the Labour Court/Tribunal under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. There is a specific bar for appearance of an advocate before the Labour Court/Tribunal. Section 6-I and Rule 40 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act provide the procedure for representation of the parties, which are extracted hereunder :-

“6-I. Representation of the parties. – (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), the parties to an industrial dispute may be represented before the Board, Labour Court, or Tribunal in the manner prescribed.

(2) No party to any proceeding before a Board shall be represented by a legal practitioner, and no party to any proceeding before a Labour Court or Tribunal shall be represented by a legal practitioner, unless the consent of the other party or parties to the proceeding and the leave of the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court or Tribunal, as the case may be, has been obtained.

(3) No officer of a Union shall be entitled to represent any party unless a period of two years has elapsed since its registration under the Indian Trade Union Act, 1926, and the Union has been registered for one trade only:

Provided that an officer of a federation of unions may subject to such conditions as may be prescribed represent any party.”

40. Representation of parties. – (1) the parties may, in their discretion, be represented before a Board, Labour Court or Tribunal-

(i) in the case of workman subject to the provision of subsection (3) of Section 6-I, by an officer of a union of which he is member, of (a) an officer of a federation of unions to which the union referred to in clause (a) above, is affiliated, and

(b) where there is no union of workmen, any representative, duly nominated by the workmen who are entitled to make an application before a Conciliation Board under any orders issued by Government, or any member of the executive, or other officer;

(ii) in the case of an employer, by an officer of a union or association of employers of which the employer is member; or

(a) an officer of a federation of unions or associations of employers to which the union or association referred to in clause (a) above, is affiliated, or

(b) by an officer of the concern, if so authorized in writing by the employer:

Provided that no officer of a federation of unions shall be entitled to represent the parities unless the federation has been approved by the Labour Commissioner for this purpose.

(2) A part appearing