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 Tribu